Mr. Gore: Apology Accepted

You are probably wondering whether President-elect Obama owes the world an apology for his actions regarding global warming. The answer is, not yet. There is one person, however, who does. You have probably guessed his name: Al Gore.

Mr. Gore has stated, regarding climate change, that "the science is in." Well, he is absolutely right about that, except for one tiny thing. It is the biggest whopper ever sold to the public in the history of humankind.

What is wrong with the statement? A brief list:

1. First, the expression "climate change" itself is a redundancy, and contains a lie. Climate has always changed, and always will. There has been no stable period of climate during the Holocene, our own climatic era, which began with the end of the last ice age 12,000 years ago. During the Holocene there have been numerous sub-periods with dramatically varied climate, such as the warm Holocene Optimum (7,000 B.C. to 3,000 B.C., during which humanity began to flourish, and advance technologically), the warm Roman Optimum (200 B.C. to 400 A.D., a time of abundant crops that promoted the empire), the cold Dark Ages (400 A.D. to 900 A.D., during which the Nile River froze, major cities were abandoned, the Roman Empire fell apart, and pestilence and famine were widespread), the Medieval Warm Period (900 A.D. to 1300 A.D., during which agriculture flourished, wealth increased, and dozens of lavish examples of Gothic architecture were created), the Little Ice Age (1300 to 1850, during much of which plague, crop failures, witch burnings, food riots -- and even revolutions, including the French Revolution -- were the rule of thumb), followed by our own time of relative warmth (1850 to present, during which population has increased, technology and medical advances have been astonishing, and agriculture has flourished).

So, no one needs to say the words "climate" and "change" in the same breath -- it is assumed, by anyone with any level of knowledge, that climate changes. That is the redundancy to which I alluded. The lie is the suggestion that climate has ever been stable. Mr. Gore has used a famously inaccurate graph, known as the "Mann Hockey Stick," created by the scientist Michael Mann, showing that the modern rise in temperatures is unprecedented, and that the dramatic changes in climate just described did not take place. They did. One last thought on the expression "climate change": It is a retreat from the earlier expression used by alarmists, "manmade global warming," which was more easily debunked. There are people in Mr. Gore's camp who now use instances of cold temperatures to prove the existence of "climate change," which is absurd, obscene, even.

2. Mr. Gore has gone so far to discourage debate on climate as to refer to those who question his simplistic view of the atmosphere as "flat-Earthers." This, too, is right on target, except for one tiny detail. It is exactly the opposite of the truth.

Indeed, it is Mr. Gore and his brethren who are flat-Earthers. Mr. Gore states, ad nauseum, that carbon dioxide rules climate in frightening and unpredictable, and new, ways. When he shows the hockey stick graph of temperature and plots it against reconstructed C02 levels in An Inconvenient Truth, he says that the two clearly have an obvious correlation. "Their relationship is actually very complicated," he says, "but there is one relationship that is far more powerful than all the others, and it is this: When there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer." The word "complicated" here is among the most significant Mr. Gore has uttered on the subject of climate and is, at best, a deliberate act of obfuscation. Why? Because it turns out that there is an 800-year lag between temperature and carbon dioxide, unlike the sense conveyed by Mr. Gore's graph. You are probably wondering by now -- and if you are not, you should be -- which rises first, carbon dioxide or temperature. The answer? Temperature. In every case, the ice-core data shows that temperature rises precede rises in carbon dioxide by, on average, 800 years. In fact, the relationship is not "complicated." When the ocean-atmosphere system warms, the oceans discharge vast quantities of carbon dioxide in a process known as de-gassing. For this reason, warm and cold years show up on the Mauna Loa C02 measurements even in the short term. For instance, the post-Pinatubo-eruption year of 1993 shows the lowest C02 increase since measurements have been kept. When did the highest C02 increase take place? During the super El Niño year of 1998.

3. What the alarmists now state is that past episodes of warming were not caused by C02 but amplified by it, which is debatable, for many reasons, but, more important, is a far cry from the version of events sold to the public by Mr. Gore.

Meanwhile, the theory that carbon dioxide "drives" climate in any meaningful way is simply wrong and, again, evidence of a "flat-Earth" mentality. Carbon dioxide cannot absorb an unlimited amount of infrared radiation. Why not? Because it only absorbs heat along limited bandwidths, and is already absorbing just about everything it can. That is why plotted on a graph, C02's ability to capture heat follows a logarithmic curve. We are already very near the maximum absorption level. Further, the IPCC Fourth Assessment, like all the ones before it, is based on computer models that presume a positive feedback of atmospheric warming via increased water vapor.

4. This mechanism has never been shown to exist. Indeed, increased temperature leads to increased evaporation of the oceans, which leads to increased cloud cover (one cooling effect) and increased precipitation (a bigger cooling effect). Within certain bounds, in other words, the ocean-atmosphere system has a very effective self-regulating tendency. By the way, water vapor is far more prevalent, and relevant, in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide -- a trace gas. Water vapor's absorption spectrum also overlays that of carbon dioxide. They cannot both absorb the same energy! The relative might of water vapor and relative weakness of carbon dioxide is exemplified by the extraordinary cooling experienced each night in desert regions, where water in the atmosphere is nearly non-existent.

If not carbon dioxide, what does "drive" climate? I am glad you are wondering about that. In the short term, it is ocean cycles, principally the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the "super cycle" of which cooling La Niñas and warming El Niños are parts. Having been in its warm phase, in which El Niños predominate, for the 30 years ending in late 2006, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation switched to its cool phase, in which La Niñas predominate.
Since that time, already, a number of interesting things have taken place. One La Niña lowered temperatures around the globe for about half of the year just ended, and another La Niña shows evidence of beginning in the equatorial Pacific waters. During the last twelve months, many interesting cold-weather events happened to occur: record snow in the European Alps, China, New Zealand, Australia, Brazil, the Pacific Northwest, Alaska, the Rockies, the upper Midwest, Las Vegas, Houston, and New Orleans. There was also, for the first time in at least 100 years, snow in Baghdad.

Concurrent with the switchover of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation to its cool phase the Sun has entered a period of deep slumber. The number of sunspots for 2008 was the second lowest of any year since 1901. That matters less because of fluctuations in the amount of heat generated by the massive star in our near proximity (although there are some fluctuations that may have some measurable effect on global temperatures) and more because of a process best described by the Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark in his complex, but elegant, work The Chilling Stars. In the book, the modern Galileo, for he is nothing less, establishes that cosmic rays from deep space seed clouds over Earth's oceans. Regulating the number of cosmic rays reaching Earth's atmosphere is the solar wind; when it is strong, we get fewer cosmic rays. When it is weak, we get more. As NASA has corroborated, the number of cosmic rays passing through our atmosphere is at the maximum level since measurements have been taken, and show no signs of diminishing. The result: the seeding of what some have taken to calling "Svensmark clouds," low dense clouds, principally over the oceans, that reflect sunlight back to space before it can have its warming effect on whatever is below.

Svensmark has proven, in the minds of most who have given his work a full hearing, that it is this very process that produced the episodes of cooling (and, inversely, warming) of our own era and past eras. The clearest instance of the process, by far, is that of the Maunder Minimum, which refers to a period from 1650 to 1700, during which the Sun had not a single spot on its face. Temperatures around the globe plummeted, with quite adverse effects: crop failures (remember the witch burnings in Europe and Massachusetts?), famine, and societal stress.

Many solar physicists anticipate that the slumbering Sun of early 2009 is likely to continue for at least two solar cycles, or about the next 25 years. Whether the Grand Solar Minimum, if it comes to pass, is as serious as the Maunder Minimum is not knowable, at present. Major solar minima (and maxima, such as the one during the second half of the 20th century) have also been shown to correlate with significant volcanic eruptions. These are likely the result of solar magnetic flux affecting geomagnetic flux, which affects the distribution of magma in Earth's molten iron core and under its thin mantle. So, let us say, just for the sake of argument, that such an eruption takes place over the course of the next two decades. Like all major eruptions, this one will have a temporary cooling effect on global temperatures, perhaps a large one. The larger the eruption, the greater the effect. History shows that periods of cold are far more stressful to humanity than periods of warm. Would the eruption and consequent cooling be a climate-modifier that exists outside of nature, somehow? Who is the "flat-Earther" now?

What about heat escaping from volcanic vents in the ocean floor? What about the destruction of warming, upper-atmosphere ozone by cosmic rays? I could go on, but space is short. Again, who is the "flat-Earther" here?

The ocean-atmosphere system is not a simple one that can be "ruled" by a trace atmospheric gas. It is a complex, chaotic system, largely modulated by solar effects (both direct and indirect), as shown by the Little Ice Age.

To be told, as I have been, by Mr. Gore, again and again, that carbon dioxide is a grave threat to humankind is not just annoying, by the way, although it is that! To re-tool our economies in an effort to suppress carbon dioxide and its imaginary effect on climate, when other, graver problems exist is, simply put, wrong. Particulate pollution, such as that causing the Asian brown cloud, is a real problem. Two billion people on Earth living without electricity, in darkened huts and hovels polluted by charcoal smoke, is a real problem.

So, let us indeed start a Manhattan Project-like mission to create alternative sources of energy. And, in the meantime, let us neither cripple our own economy by mislabeling carbon dioxide a pollutant nor discourage development in the Third World, where suffering continues unabated, day after day.

Again, Mr. Gore, I accept your apology.

And, Mr. Obama, though I voted for you for a thousand times a thousand reasons, I hope never to need one from you.

P.S. One of the last, desperate canards proposed by climate alarmists is that of the polar ice caps. Look at the "terrible," "unprecedented" melting in the Arctic in the summer of 2007, they say. Well, the ice in the Arctic basin has always melted and refrozen, and always will. Any researcher who wants to find a single molecule of ice that has been there longer than 30 years is going to have a hard job, because the ice has always been melted from above (by the midnight Sun of summer) and below (by relatively warm ocean currents, possibly amplified by volcanic venting) -- and on the sides, again by warm currents. Scientists in the alarmist camp have taken to referring to "old ice," but, again, this is a misrepresentation of what takes place in the Arctic.

More to the point, 2007 happened also to be the time of maximum historic sea ice in Antarctica. (There are many credible sources of this information, such as the following website maintained by the University of Illinois-Urbana: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg). Why, I ask, has Mr. Gore not chosen to mention the record growth of sea ice around Antarctica? If the record melting in the Arctic is significant, then the record sea ice growth around Antarctica is, too, I say. If one is insignificant, then the other one is, too.

For failing to mention the 2007 Antarctic maximum sea ice record a single time, I also accept your apology, Mr. Gore. By the way, your contention that the Arctic basin will be "ice free" in summer within five years (which you said last month in Germany), is one of the most demonstrably false comments you have dared to make. Thank you for that!

Related on HufPost:

A. Siegel -- Global Warming Knowledge: "Perhaps it is worthwhile to take a moment to lay out some reasonable sources for actual knowledge when it comes to Global Warming science and discussion."

Kevin Grandia -- On Global Warming is it Harold Ambler or the Royal Society?: "It appears that Ambler's background in the area of climate science is non-existent."

Comments

[Myke T]

Man-made global warming/climate change or whatever Al Gore is calling it this week, is a hoax. The case for man-made CO2 driven global warming is quickly falling apart. And yet the alarmists want to cripple the economy even further, and put the financial burden on the poorest among us by taxing everything that involves energy - which is pretty much everything. If you are measured and taxed by your carbon footprint, then you are being taxed for simply "being alive". It`s all about money, power and control. Why should we devote our scarce resources to what is a non"problem, and ignore the real problems like poverty, hunger, disease, real pollution, not to mention the threats of terrorism and nuclear wars... And are we really prepared to deal with natural disasters and pandemics. Yet politicians and the elitists would prefer to squander our limited resources on fashionable theories, rather than concentrate on real problems. Just consider the ridiculous predictions emanating from supposedly world figures, the chief scientist of Great Britain tells us that unless we insulate our houses and use more efficient light bulbs, the Antarctic will be the only habitable continent by 2100, with a few surviving breeding couples propagating the human race. Seriously, how can anyone believe this ridiculous nonsense. And now we have a president who wants to spend hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars on this hoax. Get the facts.
Download and watch:
The Great Global Warming Swindle
or
Global Warming or Global Governance?

[justiz]

The biggest torpedo yet.

Solar energy has varied by 28 W/m2 over the past 5 years. Demonstrated by simple arithmetic (something the IPCC can't do http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/01/the-ipcc-cant-count-author-and-reviewer-numbers-are-wrong/) by Will Alexander & Fred Bailey, the conclusion is that wattage varies by up to 30 W/m2 due to the Sun's rotation around the solar system centre, (gyre) the last 5 years have seen a 28 W/m2 variation that is as much as 10 times the IPCC's guesstimate so far as I can understand. With the ocean as a heat store that delays the solar output variation, that makes GHGs rather irrelevant, except as a means to waste the public's money by the trainload. See An Honest Climate Debate http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2009/01/26/solar-influence-underestimated-by-professor-will-alexander.

Seems the IPCC can't do anything right, they also got it wrong on CFCs in their former incarnation that produced the Montreal protocol! Summarised by Jen Marohasy http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002341.html, and the Nature report http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/browse_thread/thread/d68c75cd9a454d73/37d6d42ca985cedd?lnk=raot.

It's about time to question modelling funding and the value of IPCC advice based on fiction.

Dr. Lorenz found the climate a chaotic system way back when. "Perfect weather prediction is a fantasy." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/us/17lorenz.html (NYT, may need you to enrol).

[USNFlyboy]

Finally!!! A sane voice in a sea of insanity. Even the so-called "consensus" at the IPCC is collapsing with 650 scientists disagreeing with many aspects of anthropogenic Global Warming/Climate Change. It is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on man and our resistance to drill for oil due to the Global Warming Boogeyman was the main factor leading to our current economic collapse.

It is refreshing to finally see some intellectual and scientific honesty that will hopefully facilitate the demise of the Global Warming Religion and a return to soundness in our nation's energy policy! Obama's pledge to only act on science is consistent with minimizing these Global Warming zealots!

[justiz]

6 of 6, last one I promise!

PS
I read somewhere that marine and land volcanic and tectonic activity, mostly in the ring of fire, enjoyed a ~60% increase in the last three years, previous to that it was already having a surge after most of last century being quite quiet. All that sulphur. And some CO2. And heat. I don't know if Felix at iceagenow.com has picked up on it yet.

Cc
:-|

[ssn648]

Excellent post!

The world would be a better place if more folks would think for themselves and use this wonderful tool--the internet--to look at data for them selves.

[justiz]

Thanks for the comment SSN648, I'm more used to abuse or anecdotal debunks. I'm likely not 100% correct but I think I'm in the ball park. Anthropic co2 is basically irrelevant.
Some fairly recent stuff that may be of interest.
Wattsupwiththat.com, shows volcanoes along the west coast of western Antarctica in respopnse to Mann et al's sensationalised research showing the West warmed a fraction over the last 50 years (in hot red for -15 to -50!).
51% of Yanks don't buy Al's tale of woe,
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/01/19/gore-losing-war-59-dont-believe-man-warming-planet
The IPCC in its former incarnation outlawed cfcs as ozone destroyers.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/browse_thread/thread/d68c75cd9a454d73/37d6d42ca985cedd?lnk=raot 2007
Do a google on isoprene+ozone too, palm plantations may have some effect on its levels, and ozone+solar storms.
As ozone"s coming back in the news, I may do a post on o3 in clothcap2 at my.telegraph.com soon.
Cosmic rays may make a comeback
http://www.ncas.ac.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=446&Itemid=249
I wish Arianna would do more controversial stuff like Ambler's article, it gets them more visitors I'm sure, and would show even handedness.
:-)

[justiz]

ssn648, sorry, half asleep. Should read my.telegraph.co.uk

[justiz]

5 of 6
16. Why are people banging drums to say we are in a crisis situation? There is no excuse. Could there be an ulterior motive? Gore makes money out of alarmism hand over fist. Politicians have more power to tax and control with less protest. The EU and UN want (unelected) world government by them, a worldwide problem could have been a usable catalyst if it was real. Gore is a CoR member , as is Blair, as is Strong, as are many key members and former leaders of countries and NGO's, dunno about Hansen. Go figure. Go read. The Green Agenda.
http://www.green-agenda.com/
http://www.dejanlucic.net/Dejan%20Lucic-linkovi.htm

Believe me, I am the biggest cynic when it comes to conspiracy, but there is certainly something rotten about this whole environmental mess.

Latest contender for the title, ENSO.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/12/can-el-nino-events-explain-all-of-the-global-warming-since-1976-%E2%80%93-part-2/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/11/can-el-nino-events-explain-all-of-the-global-warming-since-1976-%E2%80%93-part-1/

http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/can-el-nino-events-explain-all-of.html
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/can-el-nino-events-explain-all-of_11.html
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/supplement-to-can-enso-events-explain.html
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/supplement-2-to-can-enso-events-explain.html

Enjoy,

Clothcap
:-)

[justiz]

Hmm. Seems like 4 of 5 or 6 the way it's worked out.

11b.If spots resume and the waters resume warming, sea ice will continue its decline. There are advantages and disadvantages. I prefer warm to cold. Polar bears prefer McDonalds to baby seals.

12. The hockey stick was due to either incompetence or fraud. Climate Audit thoroughly debunked it. The Mann who was responsible for it was on the IPCC panel last I looked. I suppose the skill he possesses qualifies him for the post.

13. The IPCC has to continually issue assessments because they can't get it right.

14. Real Climate is a strongly biased propaganda site, they never give equal weight to conflicting science, check out who pays their bills.
Funding is heavily biased to proving CO2 (and other insignificant gases) produced by human life affect the climate in a measurable way and that CO2 is a driver. What is it now? 30, 40 years, all those billions, still no evidence, still no human signature found. I wonder why. It surely couldn't be due to its insignificance? We are throwing away good money after bad.

15. Hansen's lowest projection where we are in a normal, safe temperature increase situation has been generally bettered (generally less than his lowest projection) by the global climate despite carbon dioxide increasing more than he expected for his worst case scenario. That means that we are doing ok as regards temperature.

[justiz]

8. Due to the time it takes for ice to "close" and stop gas movement, decades to centuries for the Arctic and thousands of years for the Antarctic, short term hot and cold spells are naturally smoothed out of existence and become invisible. Ice core data is dodgy for a host of other reasons too.

9. How do people think we got into this interstadial? Sea temperature is believed to have increased 12000 years ago. Warmer seas produce more WV that is THE most prevalant GHG by whole numbers of %. Warmer water equals warmer air. We had the Little Ice Age. The seas warmed and so did the air. Apart from notable excursions, the trend has been towards warming. About a degree per century is believed to be average. It will probably be about a degree this century if we don't return to stadial conditions.

10. The MWP was real, global and very likely as hot or hotter than the warmth we've had at the end of last and beginning of this century. Dig around on CO2Science's site.

11a. Global ice extent hasn't seen so much variation and is pretty close to average at present. While ice exists at the poles, we won't see stable temperatures and we certainly won't see the highs of the periods between ice ages. Polar ice needs land to extend from. Incidently, while polar ice exists, we remain in an ice age, albeit in a temporary reprieve.

[justiz]

2 of 4
4. Solar radiation increases during spot activity. The bright areas surrounding them are more radiant than the radiation lost to the cooler dark areas i.e. hotter. The Sun reached its peak radiation, I think, ~1961 and stabilised till the spots vanished 2007. Temperature this century was stable. Now it is falling, if the spots don't resume their normal activity soon we could be in for a Maunder type minimum and another little "ice age".

5. NASA discovered that rainfall was far more prevalent than assumed over the Pacific. Another item to be factored into the inadequate models.

6. Models are useful for gaining understanding of how particular molecules react in different circumstances. They are pretty damn useless for predicting climate due to us knowing more about the Moon than the oceans, ditto clouds, ditto air currents. But having said that, Hadcru's 10 year forecasts are getting better. Their warm winter, 2008 forecast for the UK was a bit off though, as weather (and climate) forecasts so often are. They forecast a hot 2009. ROTALMAO. Still, miracles happen.

7. The planet's attitude to the Sun plays a part, some variations occur in daily, weekly and monthly cycles. Check out nutations in alarmist wiki.

[justiz]

1 of 4
Mr. Ambler, you may be wrong about the PDO, see the links at the end of this ramble. It is possible ENSO dominates it.

I don't have time to read all the comments but there are many intelligent and less than sufficiently informed comments from those I looked at. I will certainly read more and thank the commenters for their effort. Here is what I have learned in my years following the CO2 case.

From memory in no particular order.

1. 18cm per century sea level rise is average for this interstadial. It is the IPCC's latest lowest estimate. The increase fell off some over the last few years.

2. Ocean acidification is a joke. Based on two experiments 10 years apart using different equipment. Has anyone seen the white cliffs of Dover? Read http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid.htm for an expert opinion.
Alarmists don't want CO2 the air, don't want it in the water. Comedians at best.

3. In the air carbon dioxide is fertiliser, it increases biomass mass and extent that increases habitat and food supply enabling species to expand. It reduces biomass dependence on water freeing up more for humans and animals alike. It increases crop yields and contrary to some speculators, does not decrease nutritional value (dig around CO2Science).

[idyl]

Mr. Ambler uses the tried and true tactics of the tobacco industry to promulgate doubt, and use the inherent "uncertainty" of science against itself to poke and prod, and chip away at broad findings and general observations. Do we fully understand all the minute processes and variables in one of the most complex natural systems on our planet (the climate) ... no we don't. But we do understand the correlation between CO2 and temperature (particularly from anthropogenic sources), and the relatively simple physics of radiative forcing in carefully controlled experiments (and have refined our understanding of these things in the more complex situation of the real world, with all of it's messy complexity and infinitely complex variables, and are able to match this understanding with historical data). We've come a long way. Are there people who smoke their whole lives and don't get lung cancer. Yes there are! Are there instances of warming and cooling in the paleoclimactic record that do not perfectly fit carbon cycles in the atmosphere, yes again. So? I don"t see where Ambler has shown (or suggested) a statistically predictable correlation between warming and cooling independent of carbon levels in the environment. He has simply said that our climate is complex ¦ and in this I agree.

Two articles stand out from me (from among the many).

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/attribution-of-20th-century-climate-change-to-cosub2sub/

[NewYorkJ]

Dr. Holdren quote:

"Appreciation for this positive role of scientific skepticism, however, should not lead to uncritical embrace of the deplorable practices characterizing what much of has been masquerading as appropriate skepticism in the climate-science domain. These practices include refusal to acknowledge the existence of large bodies of relevant evidence (such as the proposition that there is no basis for implicating carbon dioxide in the global-average temperature increases observed over the past century); the relentless recycling of arguments in public forums that have long since been persuasively discredited in the scientific literature (such as the attribution of the observed global temperature trends to urban-heat island effects or artifacts of statistical method); the pernicious suggestion that not knowing everything about a phenomenon (such as the role of cloudiness in a warming world) is the same as knowing nothing about it; and the attribution of the views of thousands of members of the mainstream climate-science community to "mass hysteria" or deliberate propagation of a "hoax".

The purveying of propositions like these by a few scientists who do or should know better "and their parroting by amateur skeptics who lack the scientific background or the motivation to figure out what's wrong with them ...... inveigh against. The activities of these folks, whether witting in the case of the scientists or unwitting in the case of their gullible adherents, have nothing to do with respectable scientific skepticism.""

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/12/22/12217/584

[ssn648]

NewYorkJ, Nice post. You sure can use the language.

You will have to forgive my ignorance as I am a simple person, lacking in the education you so obviously have received. Perhaps you could explain a few annoying trees for me.

I have been taught that for one thing to cause another there must be a cause and effect relationship. The cause happens before the effect. (affect, effect, who can keep them straight?)

So, how can CO2 cause warming when virtually all ice core and bottom sediment evidence shows that the temperature in the past has risen 400 to 3000 years before the CO2 levels go up?

Another tree, Why is the CO2 level and temperature correlated (happening at the same time) since the 1700's? I thought for a cause and effect relationship the cause should at least be correlated to the effect. I am referring to the decrease in temp in the 40's and the current decrease in the temp for the past 10 years, all while the CO2 level has been steadily increasing.

Finally, where do the following folks fit in the climate-science community?

The case for scepticism (by Michael Crichton)
http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-ou...

An independent view on global warming.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jht...

Part 2 of the above article.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jht...

Al Gore tried to attack the above article, and here is the response.
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061121...

[ConservativefromOH]

What I'm not seeing is anything resembling a scientific fact. Basically when you have nothing, you resort to name-calling. (A standard liberal practice). BTW, when an actual debate on global warming was done on NPR, the audience majority agreed with global warming skeptics. See the following link:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9082151

No wonder Al doesn't want to debate.

[NewYorkJ]

On contrarians:

"They argue not as scientists but as lawyers," says Pieter Tans, who runs a lab at NOAA in Boulder, Colo., where he examines bottles of air taken from monitoring stations all over the planet. "When they argue, they pick one piece of the fabric of evidence and blow it up all out of proportion . . . Their purpose is to confuse, so that the public gets the idea that there is a raging scientific debate. There is no raging scientific debate."

Or in other words, none of them can see the forest for the trees.

When we examine full body of scientific literature or the statements from the major scientific academies, we see the virtual consensus on human-induced climate change. However, the blogosphere is a place for a lot of disinformation on the issue masquerading as science, which I suppose is inevitable with an issue with political ramifications.

Dr. David Archer: "The target audience of denialism is the lay audience, not scientists. It's made up to look like science, but it's PR. "

"Skeptics" is sort of a redundant term, since all scientists are skeptical. What goes on in climate science is much worse. There is a very strong desire from contrarians not to want to believe the science on global warming - for political or ideological reasons or what not.

Dr. John Holdren (Obama's science advisor) describes the "uncritical embrace" of contrarian talking points. Skeptics should be considerably more skeptical of themselves (see next post)

[ConservativefromOH]

A few scientists who would take exception to your alarmism:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7

BTW, what's your scientific background?

[ConservativefromOH]

Really it's very easy to disprove the man-made global warming scenario yourself. If you have or can find the video section of Inconvenient Truth on the web, simply pause the video while the temperature and CO2 levels are displayed one above the other during any one of the temperature spikes. If you drop a line straight down you'll notice that temperature climbs before CO2. Granted the delay is rather short relative to the timeframe size of the graph, but it is noticeable. This simple test dispells the myth of CO2 driving temperature. If you find it difficult to see, ask yourself why Al Gore didn't enlarge it so he could better make his point or drop one graph into the other. Others have enlarged the data if you care to look. BTW, ice core data consistently shows the delay in CO2 responding to increased temperature. Remember people, Al Gore is a politician with no scientific background and has something to gain (his carbon credit company) by pushing this garbage.

[ssn648]

Reading through the responses here i am really enjoying seeing the debate.

I have a question for those of you out there who are "in the tank" with Al Gore.

If, as Al has decreed, CO2 is the driver of Global Warming, how do you explain this comment from the article above;

"Carbon dioxide cannot absorb an unlimited amount of infrared radiation. Why not? Because it only absorbs heat along limited bandwidths, and is already absorbing just about everything it can. That is why plotted on a graph, C02's ability to capture heat follows a logarithmic curve. We are already very near the maximum absorption level."

After doing some looking around on the internet myself regarding GW several years ago I also found this fact mentioned, I was stunned that anyone who knows this can still clam with a straight face that increasing CO2 level will create global warming.

It would seem to me that if you are still a beilver in Al's GW theory, you have to come up with a way to explain that fact away. If anyone can I would really like to hear it.

[NewYorkJ]

Answered here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-roberts/huffington-post-blows-it_b_155696.html

"in the tank with Al Gore"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

"After doing some looking around on the internet myself regarding GW several years ago..."

The internet is kind of a double-edged sword. It has a lot of good information and a lot of misinformation, and a lot of folks who uncritically parrot that misinformation. It can be difficult for a layperson to sort it all out.

[Evidence-phile]

Thank you and bravo, Mr. Ambler. Though I would never accept Mr. Gore's apology, I would send him back to school.

[beerguy]

It is amazing how arrogant we are as a species. We cause global warming? Please I thinh the great George Carlin explains it best:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=948Nm34arfA

[dannyS]

It is arrogant to think that we can pollute as much as we want.
Thinking that we can help keep the earth clean is not arrogance, it is called responsibility.

[ConservativefromOH]

There is a difference between pollution and CO2. You were aware you exhale it, right?