Climate Change Deniers Are Lying

[frigidweirdo]

They're also currently arguing that we are moving right back in to ANOTHER ice age. The interglacial period was, what, 17 years long?

We should be headed towards another ice age.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You chart shows CO2 LAGGING temperature on both the increase and decline.

How can that be? I thought CO2 drives temperature

You thought? Or you think this is a nice little safe topic for you to suddenly put in because.... because you don't want to respond to what I wrote.

However, to answer your 90 degree turn question.....

Here's the thing.

With natural temperature rise and fall these charts suggest that this is the case. Why? I'm not sure, there are various possibilities.

With man made input of CO2 then what happens?

What we're seeing is that man made CO2 in the atmosphere in sufficient quantities, as we have right now, appears to be keeping temperature levels higher than we expected them to be.

So.... what's your point?

So you're saying man-made CO2 is different?

 

[jc456]

You haven't been around long enough.. Gore has been shredded on DOZENS of stupid and misleading statements.

Right..... just like you're "shredding" him now.

He made a predication. He didn't say it would come true. He said it could happen. It didn't. Okay, so the prediction was wrong. It wasn't Gore's prediction, it was someone else's. Yet people come on here and call him a liar as if he just made something up knowing it wouldn't happen.

Arctic sea ice to melt by 2015 - Telegraph

Here is someone making a similar claim which would concern this summer.

"
Arctic sea ice could completely melt away by the summer of 2015"

"Could melt", not "will melt".

Arctic ice melting to a record low scientists warn - Science - News - The Independent

"
Arctic sea ice partially melts each summer and reforms again in the winter, but over the past 35 years of satellite readings the summer retreat has been getting significantly greater, with a record summer minimum recorded in September 2007.

However, scientists at the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado, said that this summer's melt season in the Arctic has been so rapid and extensive that 2012 will almost certainly see sea ice coverage reach a new low."

NASA - NASA Finds Thickest Parts of Arctic Ice Cap Melting Faster

"GREENBELT, Md. -- A new NASA study revealed that the oldest and thickest Arctic sea ice is disappearing at a faster rate than the younger and thinner ice at the edges of the Arctic Ocean’s floating ice cap."

So, we can see a decline. 2015 looks way to early, we'd be looking at about another 17 years or so before that blue line its 3 million square kilometers, with some summers being far below this 3 million square kilometers and some summers being higher.

What is a fact is that the Arctic is losing ice at a high rate. This wouldn't be a problem if we expected the temperatures to be getting hotter. However we'd expect temperatures to be getting COLDER, based on a 100,000 year cycle.

Dude, 'could' or 'might' a prediction that doesn't come true is one that was wrong. wow, you can't even make that comment objectively. spin after spin to somehow show he was right. only makes folks like you hacks.

 

[jc456]

You chart shows CO2 LAGGING temperature on both the increase and decline.

How can that be? I thought CO2 drives temperature

You thought? Or you think this is a nice little safe topic for you to suddenly put in because.... because you don't want to respond to what I wrote.

However, to answer your 90 degree turn question.....

Here's the thing.

With natural temperature rise and fall these charts suggest that this is the case. Why? I'm not sure, there are various possibilities.

With man made input of CO2 then what happens?

What we're seeing is that man made CO2 in the atmosphere in sufficient quantities, as we have right now, appears to be keeping temperature levels higher than we expected them to be.

So.... what's your point?

in other words, the science doesn't know because the science is settled correct?

 

[frigidweirdo]

You chart shows CO2 LAGGING temperature on both the increase and decline.

How can that be? I thought CO2 drives temperature

You thought? Or you think this is a nice little safe topic for you to suddenly put in because.... because you don't want to respond to what I wrote.

However, to answer your 90 degree turn question.....

Here's the thing.

With natural temperature rise and fall these charts suggest that this is the case. Why? I'm not sure, there are various possibilities.

With man made input of CO2 then what happens?

What we're seeing is that man made CO2 in the atmosphere in sufficient quantities, as we have right now, appears to be keeping temperature levels higher than we expected them to be.

So.... what's your point?

So you're saying man-made CO2 is different?

No.

I'm saying man made CO2 and other greenhouse gases are an extra that can change the way things work.

If temperatures rise, then CO2 rises, and then at some point temperatures drop and CO2 drops. What happens when CO2 rises without rising temperatures?

It's called a spanner in the works. Something that could tip the balance to something that we simply can't control if it all goes balls up.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You chart shows CO2 LAGGING temperature on both the increase and decline.

How can that be? I thought CO2 drives temperature

You thought? Or you think this is a nice little safe topic for you to suddenly put in because.... because you don't want to respond to what I wrote.

However, to answer your 90 degree turn question.....

Here's the thing.

With natural temperature rise and fall these charts suggest that this is the case. Why? I'm not sure, there are various possibilities.

With man made input of CO2 then what happens?

What we're seeing is that man made CO2 in the atmosphere in sufficient quantities, as we have right now, appears to be keeping temperature levels higher than we expected them to be.

So.... what's your point?

in other words, the science doesn't know because the science is settled correct?

We don't know what the weather will be like tomorrow. Does that mean we don't bother predicting the weather? Does it also mean no one bothers to do anything about potential problems? "Oh, a hurricane's coming." "can you prove 100% it's coming?" "No" "Then I'm not doing anything until it's 100% certain".

The sort of attitude where people don't look at educated predictions and then prepare for potential possibilities is the sort of attitude that goes down well with simple people.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You haven't been around long enough.. Gore has been shredded on DOZENS of stupid and misleading statements.

Right..... just like you're "shredding" him now.

He made a predication. He didn't say it would come true. He said it could happen. It didn't. Okay, so the prediction was wrong. It wasn't Gore's prediction, it was someone else's. Yet people come on here and call him a liar as if he just made something up knowing it wouldn't happen.

Arctic sea ice to melt by 2015 - Telegraph

Here is someone making a similar claim which would concern this summer.

"
Arctic sea ice could completely melt away by the summer of 2015"

"Could melt", not "will melt".

Arctic ice melting to a record low scientists warn - Science - News - The Independent

"
Arctic sea ice partially melts each summer and reforms again in the winter, but over the past 35 years of satellite readings the summer retreat has been getting significantly greater, with a record summer minimum recorded in September 2007.

However, scientists at the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado, said that this summer's melt season in the Arctic has been so rapid and extensive that 2012 will almost certainly see sea ice coverage reach a new low."

NASA - NASA Finds Thickest Parts of Arctic Ice Cap Melting Faster

"GREENBELT, Md. -- A new NASA study revealed that the oldest and thickest Arctic sea ice is disappearing at a faster rate than the younger and thinner ice at the edges of the Arctic Ocean’s floating ice cap."

So, we can see a decline. 2015 looks way to early, we'd be looking at about another 17 years or so before that blue line its 3 million square kilometers, with some summers being far below this 3 million square kilometers and some summers being higher.

What is a fact is that the Arctic is losing ice at a high rate. This wouldn't be a problem if we expected the temperatures to be getting hotter. However we'd expect temperatures to be getting COLDER, based on a 100,000 year cycle.

Dude, 'could' or 'might' a prediction that doesn't come true is one that was wrong. wow, you can't even make that comment objectively. spin after spin to somehow show he was right. only makes folks like you hacks.

I'm not saying he didn't get the prediction wrong.

What I'm saying is A) he's not a liar. It was a prediction based on some scientific data. and B) there is a big problem with melting ice in the Arctic, so it's not scaremongering. He just simply didn't hit the right number of years. However it potentially could have happened had we had one of those years where it got drastically hot and caused the ice to melt loads. That didn't happen. The temperatures of the Earth fluctuate, ice melt happens differently every year.

Just because something didn't happen, doesn't mean it couldn't have happened.

If I buy a lottery ticket I could win. However I didn't. Does that mean I lied when I said I could win the lottery the next day? No.

 

[jc456]

You chart shows CO2 LAGGING temperature on both the increase and decline.

How can that be? I thought CO2 drives temperature

You thought? Or you think this is a nice little safe topic for you to suddenly put in because.... because you don't want to respond to what I wrote.

However, to answer your 90 degree turn question.....

Here's the thing.

With natural temperature rise and fall these charts suggest that this is the case. Why? I'm not sure, there are various possibilities.

With man made input of CO2 then what happens?

What we're seeing is that man made CO2 in the atmosphere in sufficient quantities, as we have right now, appears to be keeping temperature levels higher than we expected them to be.

So.... what's your point?

So you're saying man-made CO2 is different?

We are evil

 

[flacaltenn]

Frigid --- Not MAJOR Ice Age --- Little Ice Age ---

About Environmental History Resources

Little Ice Age
The Little Ice Age was a period of regionally cold conditions between about AD 1300 and 1850. The Little Ice Age was a period of regionally cold conditions between roughly AD 1350 and 1850. The term "Little Ice Age" is somewhat questionable, because there was no single, well-defined period of prolonged cold. There were two phases of the Little Ice Age, the first beginning around 1290 and continuing until the late 1400s. There was a slightly warmer period in the 1500s, after which the climate deteriorated substantially. After 1600, there are indications that average winter temperatures in Europe and North America were as much as 2°C lower than at present.

There is substantial historical evidence for the Little Ice Age. The Baltic Sea froze over, as did many of the rivers and lakes in Europe. Pack ice expanded far south into the Atlantic making shipping to Iceland and Greenland impossible for months on end. Winters were bitterly cold and summers were often cool and wet. These conditions led to widespread crop failure, famine, and population decline. The tree line and snowline dropped and glaciers advanced, overrunning towns and farms in the process. There was a lot of social unrest as large portions of the population were reduced to starvation and poverty.

The period between 1600 and 1800 marks the height of the Little Ice Age and is characterized by cold and long winters as well as well as some unusual warmth during the summer. Climate variability in Northern Europe became more pronounced than before. The period was also characterized by the expansion of European trade and the formation of European sea born Empires. This was directly linked to advances in technology harnessing more of nature's power and towards the end of the period of fossil-fuelled power. The 17th and 18th centuries also saw the specialization of agricultural regions, which produced specific products for local and international markets.

Now THERE is some immediate warnings about the climate changing. This dinky 0.5degC rise in your lifetime is NOT a headline. Storms don't care a whit if the cold layers and warm layers are all 0.5degC warmer. They feed off of DIFFERENTIALS -- not ABSOLUTES... Differences in temperature, differences in humidity, differences in pressure, differences in wind patterns... ALL those things intensify weather.. If it's hot at the surface AND aloft -- not much happens..

Don't want to live in a climate where glaciers are growing..

And I'd love to discuss REAL pollution with you and how we should be actually focusing on that. But it has nothing to do with Climate Change...

I know the difference between a major and minor ice age. The reality is we were not in either. So, again, it's a little worrying that you think we're seeing signs of leaving an ice age, however large or small, when we're not experiencing one, isn't it?

Climate change time scales are on the orders of decades and centuries. It's a fallacy of AGW that we should expect to see meaningful changes over a decade or so.. So YES -- the LAST meaningful climatic change was a cold spell until the early 19th century..

I just don't DO ice.. It's not a meaningful indicator of Global Climate.. Only takes one day a year above 32degF to melt it.. Otherwise it's happy and stable.. Since it's been melting for the past 10,000 years, it's not exciting to me.

 

[flacaltenn]

You haven't been around long enough.. Gore has been shredded on DOZENS of stupid and misleading statements.

Right..... just like you're "shredding" him now.

He made a predication. He didn't say it would come true. He said it could happen. It didn't. Okay, so the prediction was wrong. It wasn't Gore's prediction, it was someone else's. Yet people come on here and call him a liar as if he just made something up knowing it wouldn't happen.

Arctic sea ice to melt by 2015 - Telegraph

Here is someone making a similar claim which would concern this summer.

"
Arctic sea ice could completely melt away by the summer of 2015"

"Could melt", not "will melt".

Arctic ice melting to a record low scientists warn - Science - News - The Independent

"
Arctic sea ice partially melts each summer and reforms again in the winter, but over the past 35 years of satellite readings the summer retreat has been getting significantly greater, with a record summer minimum recorded in September 2007.

However, scientists at the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado, said that this summer's melt season in the Arctic has been so rapid and extensive that 2012 will almost certainly see sea ice coverage reach a new low."

NASA - NASA Finds Thickest Parts of Arctic Ice Cap Melting Faster

"GREENBELT, Md. -- A new NASA study revealed that the oldest and thickest Arctic sea ice is disappearing at a faster rate than the younger and thinner ice at the edges of the Arctic Ocean’s floating ice cap."

So, we can see a decline. 2015 looks way to early, we'd be looking at about another 17 years or so before that blue line its 3 million square kilometers, with some summers being far below this 3 million square kilometers and some summers being higher.

What is a fact is that the Arctic is losing ice at a high rate. This wouldn't be a problem if we expected the temperatures to be getting hotter. However we'd expect temperatures to be getting COLDER, based on a 100,000 year cycle.

Dude, 'could' or 'might' a prediction that doesn't come true is one that was wrong. wow, you can't even make that comment objectively. spin after spin to somehow show he was right. only makes folks like you hacks.

I'm not saying he didn't get the prediction wrong.

What I'm saying is A) he's not a liar. It was a prediction based on some scientific data. and B) there is a big problem with melting ice in the Arctic, so it's not scaremongering. He just simply didn't hit the right number of years. However it potentially could have happened had we had one of those years where it got drastically hot and caused the ice to melt loads. That didn't happen. The temperatures of the Earth fluctuate, ice melt happens differently every year.

Just because something didn't happen, doesn't mean it couldn't have happened.

If I buy a lottery ticket I could win. However I didn't. Does that mean I lied when I said I could win the lottery the next day? No.

He was also caught EMBELLISHING the science with things that were never said -- to make it sound even scarier to the public and the media..

 

[flacaltenn]

You haven't been around long enough.. Gore has been shredded on DOZENS of stupid and misleading statements.

Right..... just like you're "shredding" him now.

He made a predication. He didn't say it would come true. He said it could happen. It didn't. Okay, so the prediction was wrong. It wasn't Gore's prediction, it was someone else's. Yet people come on here and call him a liar as if he just made something up knowing it wouldn't happen.

Arctic sea ice to melt by 2015 - Telegraph

Here is someone making a similar claim which would concern this summer.

"
Arctic sea ice could completely melt away by the summer of 2015"

"Could melt", not "will melt".

Arctic ice melting to a record low scientists warn - Science - News - The Independent

"
Arctic sea ice partially melts each summer and reforms again in the winter, but over the past 35 years of satellite readings the summer retreat has been getting significantly greater, with a record summer minimum recorded in September 2007.

However, scientists at the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado, said that this summer's melt season in the Arctic has been so rapid and extensive that 2012 will almost certainly see sea ice coverage reach a new low."

NASA - NASA Finds Thickest Parts of Arctic Ice Cap Melting Faster

"GREENBELT, Md. -- A new NASA study revealed that the oldest and thickest Arctic sea ice is disappearing at a faster rate than the younger and thinner ice at the edges of the Arctic Ocean’s floating ice cap."

So, we can see a decline. 2015 looks way to early, we'd be looking at about another 17 years or so before that blue line its 3 million square kilometers, with some summers being far below this 3 million square kilometers and some summers being higher.

What is a fact is that the Arctic is losing ice at a high rate. This wouldn't be a problem if we expected the temperatures to be getting hotter. However we'd expect temperatures to be getting COLDER, based on a 100,000 year cycle.

Dude, 'could' or 'might' a prediction that doesn't come true is one that was wrong. wow, you can't even make that comment objectively. spin after spin to somehow show he was right. only makes folks like you hacks.

I'm not saying he didn't get the prediction wrong.

What I'm saying is A) he's not a liar. It was a prediction based on some scientific data. and B) there is a big problem with melting ice in the Arctic, so it's not scaremongering. He just simply didn't hit the right number of years. However it potentially could have happened had we had one of those years where it got drastically hot and caused the ice to melt loads. That didn't happen. The temperatures of the Earth fluctuate, ice melt happens differently every year.

Just because something didn't happen, doesn't mean it couldn't have happened.

If I buy a lottery ticket I could win. However I didn't. Does that mean I lied when I said I could win the lottery the next day? No.

OH MAYBE -- I agree with you that IN THIS CASE -- Al Gore was the victim of serial LYING scientists at the Naval Postgraduate School.. ... But he EMBELLISHED the lie -- so he's an accomplice to lie..

Even better for the contention that the scientists KNOWINGLY give cover to politicians and media so they can blast the public with SCARY GW propaganda... Doesn't matter that Maslowski chided him for messing up his lie. Nobody heard that part of the deception.. Maslowski BTW has a string of almost YEARLY -- now failed predictions about Arctic Ice dissappearing.

He has as much chance of getting that right -- as you do with your lottery ticket...

 

[jc456]

You haven't been around long enough.. Gore has been shredded on DOZENS of stupid and misleading statements.

Right..... just like you're "shredding" him now.

He made a predication. He didn't say it would come true. He said it could happen. It didn't. Okay, so the prediction was wrong. It wasn't Gore's prediction, it was someone else's. Yet people come on here and call him a liar as if he just made something up knowing it wouldn't happen.

Arctic sea ice to melt by 2015 - Telegraph

Here is someone making a similar claim which would concern this summer.

"
Arctic sea ice could completely melt away by the summer of 2015"

"Could melt", not "will melt".

Arctic ice melting to a record low scientists warn - Science - News - The Independent

"
Arctic sea ice partially melts each summer and reforms again in the winter, but over the past 35 years of satellite readings the summer retreat has been getting significantly greater, with a record summer minimum recorded in September 2007.

However, scientists at the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado, said that this summer's melt season in the Arctic has been so rapid and extensive that 2012 will almost certainly see sea ice coverage reach a new low."

NASA - NASA Finds Thickest Parts of Arctic Ice Cap Melting Faster

"GREENBELT, Md. -- A new NASA study revealed that the oldest and thickest Arctic sea ice is disappearing at a faster rate than the younger and thinner ice at the edges of the Arctic Ocean’s floating ice cap."

So, we can see a decline. 2015 looks way to early, we'd be looking at about another 17 years or so before that blue line its 3 million square kilometers, with some summers being far below this 3 million square kilometers and some summers being higher.

What is a fact is that the Arctic is losing ice at a high rate. This wouldn't be a problem if we expected the temperatures to be getting hotter. However we'd expect temperatures to be getting COLDER, based on a 100,000 year cycle.

Dude, 'could' or 'might' a prediction that doesn't come true is one that was wrong. wow, you can't even make that comment objectively. spin after spin to somehow show he was right. only makes folks like you hacks.

I'm not saying he didn't get the prediction wrong.

What I'm saying is A) he's not a liar. It was a prediction based on some scientific data. and B) there is a big problem with melting ice in the Arctic, so it's not scaremongering. He just simply didn't hit the right number of years. However it potentially could have happened had we had one of those years where it got drastically hot and caused the ice to melt loads. That didn't happen. The temperatures of the Earth fluctuate, ice melt happens differently every year.

Just because something didn't happen, doesn't mean it couldn't have happened.

If I buy a lottery ticket I could win. However I didn't. Does that mean I lied when I said I could win the lottery the next day? No.

He was also caught EMBELLISHING the science with things that were never said -- to make it sound even scarier to the public and the media..

This.

As I pointed out before.

 

[jc456]

You chart shows CO2 LAGGING temperature on both the increase and decline.

How can that be? I thought CO2 drives temperature

You thought? Or you think this is a nice little safe topic for you to suddenly put in because.... because you don't want to respond to what I wrote.

However, to answer your 90 degree turn question.....

Here's the thing.

With natural temperature rise and fall these charts suggest that this is the case. Why? I'm not sure, there are various possibilities.

With man made input of CO2 then what happens?

What we're seeing is that man made CO2 in the atmosphere in sufficient quantities, as we have right now, appears to be keeping temperature levels higher than we expected them to be.

So.... what's your point?

in other words, the science doesn't know because the science is settled correct?

We don't know what the weather will be like tomorrow. Does that mean we don't bother predicting the weather? Does it also mean no one bothers to do anything about potential problems? "Oh, a hurricane's coming." "can you prove 100% it's coming?" "No" "Then I'm not doing anything until it's 100% certain".

The sort of attitude where people don't look at educated predictions and then prepare for potential possibilities is the sort of attitude that goes down well with simple people.

question, almost every year there is a threat of hurricanes correct? Does that mean then all coastal home owners board up their houses and leave?

BTW, the ice in the arctic has melted in the summer months every year I have been alive and then some. So making a prediction like Gore's statement, could have been made every year in your little world. that's just funny.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You chart shows CO2 LAGGING temperature on both the increase and decline.

How can that be? I thought CO2 drives temperature

You thought? Or you think this is a nice little safe topic for you to suddenly put in because.... because you don't want to respond to what I wrote.

However, to answer your 90 degree turn question.....

Here's the thing.

With natural temperature rise and fall these charts suggest that this is the case. Why? I'm not sure, there are various possibilities.

With man made input of CO2 then what happens?

What we're seeing is that man made CO2 in the atmosphere in sufficient quantities, as we have right now, appears to be keeping temperature levels higher than we expected them to be.

So.... what's your point?

So you're saying man-made CO2 is different?

No.

I'm saying man made CO2 and other greenhouse gases are an extra that can change the way things work.

If temperatures rise, then CO2 rises, and then at some point temperatures drop and CO2 drops. What happens when CO2 rises without rising temperatures?

It's called a spanner in the works. Something that could tip the balance to something that we simply can't control if it all goes balls up.

That's not what your chart shows

 

[frigidweirdo]

Climate change time scales are on the orders of decades and centuries. It's a fallacy of AGW that we should expect to see meaningful changes over a decade or so.. So YES -- the LAST meaningful climatic change was a cold spell until the early 19th century..

I just don't DO ice.. It's not a meaningful indicator of Global Climate.. Only takes one day a year above 32degF to melt it.. Otherwise it's happy and stable.. Since it's been melting for the past 10,000 years, it's not exciting to me.

You don't do ice. So what do you do? Ice is the most stable way of assessing climate over a very long period. It's been shown to be quite stable in recent years when they've used it in comparison with other techniques.

So what do you have? Nothing. Fine, then you're going to need what we do have. It's not perfect, no one is saying it is. However are you suggesting that in the space of 400,000 years, there were long periods of one day o a year above 32 degrees which melted it to make it look like something else?

You don't scientists haven't taken this into account?

Ice has been melting. What we believe is it should have been melting up until a little while ago/now, and it should be getting colder. We seem to be having weather trying to get colder but not.

 

[frigidweirdo]

He was also caught EMBELLISHING the science with things that were never said -- to make it sound even scarier to the public and the media..

Okay, but in general most of what he has said has been backed up by the majority of the scientific community. Most non-scientists will probably try and do something similar. It's how you get heard. He's a politician, it's what you do, you sell, which involves "lying" to people, but keeping enough in the truth that no one can call you out properly.

Did you expect anything different from any politicians?

Does this mean that because Al Gore said "X" that man made global warming isn't going to be a massive problem in the future?

 

[frigidweirdo]

question, almost every year there is a threat of hurricanes correct? Does that mean then all coastal home owners board up their houses and leave?

BTW, the ice in the arctic has melted in the summer months every year I have been alive and then some. So making a prediction like Gore's statement, could have been made every year in your little world. that's just funny.

Hurricanes exist. No one is suggesting that they don't exist and don't happen every year. They're a natural phenomenon of our Earth's weather system. What seems to be being said is that weather is becoming more erratic. ie the number of hurricanes could be much higher or much lower than previous years, or it could not. We're less likely to know. The most powerful cyclone happened in 2006, for example.

Ice has been melting for a long time. Hardly surprising seeing as we've been in a period of natural global warming for a few hundred years or more. However we'd be expecting to be in a period of global cooling around now.

Also, as for your example. Well, we've been pumping out CO2 in large quantities since the industrial revolution which started BEFORE you were born. (I saw a think about three ladies born in 1899, and they're like 115 or 116 years old, and they weren't born before the industrial revolution and they're some of the oldest people in the world).

 

[frigidweirdo]

You chart shows CO2 LAGGING temperature on both the increase and decline.

How can that be? I thought CO2 drives temperature

You thought? Or you think this is a nice little safe topic for you to suddenly put in because.... because you don't want to respond to what I wrote.

However, to answer your 90 degree turn question.....

Here's the thing.

With natural temperature rise and fall these charts suggest that this is the case. Why? I'm not sure, there are various possibilities.

With man made input of CO2 then what happens?

What we're seeing is that man made CO2 in the atmosphere in sufficient quantities, as we have right now, appears to be keeping temperature levels higher than we expected them to be.

So.... what's your point?

So you're saying man-made CO2 is different?

No.

I'm saying man made CO2 and other greenhouse gases are an extra that can change the way things work.

If temperatures rise, then CO2 rises, and then at some point temperatures drop and CO2 drops. What happens when CO2 rises without rising temperatures?

It's called a spanner in the works. Something that could tip the balance to something that we simply can't control if it all goes balls up.

That's not what your chart shows

I get the feeling you're trying to make a point. Spit it out then.

 

[flacaltenn]

He was also caught EMBELLISHING the science with things that were never said -- to make it sound even scarier to the public and the media..

Okay, but in general most of what he has said has been backed up by the majority of the scientific community. Most non-scientists will probably try and do something similar. It's how you get heard. He's a politician, it's what you do, you sell, which involves "lying" to people, but keeping enough in the truth that no one can call you out properly.

Did you expect anything different from any politicians?

Does this mean that because Al Gore said "X" that man made global warming isn't going to be a massive problem in the future?

No way those Arctic projections Gore quoted were backed by a majority of the scientific community. Not even the Climate Science community. In fact, I'll wager the ACTUAL PAPERS gave a range of time and Gore just selected the scariest SHORTEST TIME that appeared.. That in itself is devious and dishonest.

Look -- I don't do sea ice because i was involved in the early LandSat programs and know how iffy some of these "sea ice" estimates actually are. They aren't counting pristine ice -- they are counting any ocean area that has 30% or more "ice cubes" floating in it. That definition is so weak and fleeting that it is BOUND to vary a whole lot from season to season. Makes for a lot of cheerleading on both sides. Like I said, ice melts at 32degF -- so 300 days of the year it sits there and maybe grows. You can melt the same amount of ice with 1 degree over freezing for 10 days --- or 0.1degF over freezing for 100 days.. Tells you NOTHING specific about the pattern of warming and whether it was weather related or Climate related. I DO follow most everything else.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No way those Arctic projections Gore quoted were backed by a majority of the scientific community. Not even the Climate Science community. In fact, I'll wager the ACTUAL PAPERS gave a range of time and Gore just selected the scariest SHORTEST TIME that appeared.. That in itself is devious and dishonest.

Look -- I don't do sea ice because i was involved in the early LandSat programs and know how iffy some of these "sea ice" estimates actually are. They aren't counting pristine ice -- they are counting any ocean area that has 30% or more "ice cubes" floating in it. That definition is so weak and fleeting that it is BOUND to vary a whole lot from season to season. Makes for a lot of cheerleading on both sides. Like I said, ice melts at 32degF -- so 300 days of the year it sits there and maybe grows. You can melt the same amount of ice with 1 degree over freezing for 10 days --- or 0.1degF over freezing for 100 days.. Tells you NOTHING specific about the pattern of warming and whether it was weather related or Climate related. I DO follow most everything else.

Usually they're not counting sea ice at all. They're counting ice which sits on top of ice which sits on top of ice. No sea crystals at all.

No way they were backed by a majority huh? How many people from the scientific community backed him then?