What is an "ice age?"

[Crick]

Name the two sides of that court case. You've never done so. Who were the parties and what was the question the court was to resolve? What was the official finding of the court?

 

[LaDexter]

What was the official finding of the court?

`. 90% of Earth ice on Antarctica GROWING

No correlation between CO2 and temperature in the ice cores

 

[Crick]

Wrong. Try again.

 

[SSDD]

What was the official finding of the court?

`. 90% of Earth ice on Antarctica GROWING

No correlation between CO2 and temperature in the ice cores

Well....there is a correlation between CO2 and ice cores...Ice cores tell us that the is usually a 400 to 1000 year lag between increasing temperatures and increased CO2...that would be due to outgassing from warmer seas that hold less CO2 than cold seas.

 

[LaDexter]

Court Identifies Eleven Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’

• The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
• The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.

 

[LaDexter]

that would be due to outgassing from warmer seas that hold less CO2 than cold seas.

Or, as land moves away from a pole and ice melts, more land then can produce plant life, and that makes CO2 go up.

 

[Crick]

What was the official finding of the court?

`. 90% of Earth ice on Antarctica GROWING

No correlation between CO2 and temperature in the ice cores

Well....there is a correlation between CO2 and ice cores...Ice cores tell us that the is usually a 400 to 1000 year lag between increasing temperatures and increased CO2...that would be due to outgassing from warmer seas that hold less CO2 than cold seas.

Not the topic at the moment SID. But if you'd like to help out Mr Dexter, perhaps you could answer the questions I've posed about the court case he seems to think resolved all global warming issues back in 2007.

PS, I think you meant to say there's a correlation between CO2 and temperature IN ice cores. I do not actually believe there is a correlation between the gas "AND ICE CORES" because the statement is meaningless.

 

[Crick]

Court Identifies Eleven Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’

• The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
• The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.

Bullshit.

Hmm... MRC Newsbusters. Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias. Gosh, that's just where I would have gone to get the details on a British court case from almost ten years back.

For starters, the judge identified NINE "inaccuracies" in the film, not eleven. He pointedly did not identify them as "errors" as had Mr Dimmock's counsel but as "inaccuracies". NO judgement on the validity of AGW was presented by the judge and the ruling had NO effect aside from requiring a guidance note be presented along with the film identifying the nine issues noted below when the film was presented in UK public schools. The film DOES NOT say Antarctic ice is growing. It doesn't even say it is not melting (Dex, you might note the time delta between Dimmock and Zwally). The ruling makes NO mention of CO2 lagging temperature increase, only notes that "Although there is general scientific agreement that there is a connection, the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts."

From Wikipedia's article on Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills (emphases mine)

The judgment
Justice Burton's written judgment was released on 10 October 2007. He found that it was clear that the film "is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme." The necessary amendments made to the related guidance notes make it clear what the mainstream view is, insofar as the film departs from it. The notes also explain that there are views of sceptics who do not accept the consensus reached by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Given these amendments, the judge considered that the film was put in a context in which a balanced presentation of opposing views was offered and where it could be shown to students in compliance with the law. Given a proper context, the requirement for a balanced presentation did not warrant that equal weight be given to alternative views of a mainstream view.

The judge concluded "I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right when he says that: 'Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.'" On the basis of testimony from Dr. Robert M. Carter and the arguments put forth by the claimant's lawyers, the judge also pointed to nine of the statements that Dimmock's counsel had described as "errors" as inaccuracies; i.e, that were not representative of the mainstream. He also found that some of these statements arose in the context of supporting Al Gore's political thesis. The judge required that the guidance notes should address these statements.[19]

Those nine are:

1. Sea level rise of up to 20 feet (7 metres) will be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland.
   • Gore's view: "If Greenland broke up and melted, or if half of Greenland and half of West Antarctica broke up and melted, this is what would happen to the sea level in Florida. This is what would happen in the San Francisco Bay. A lot of people live in these areas. The Netherlands, the Low Countries: absolutely devastation. The area around Beijing is home to tens of millions of people. Even worse, in the area around Shanghai, there are 40 million people. Worse still, Calcutta, and to the east Bangladesh, the area covered includes 50 million people. Think of the impact of a couple of hundred thousand refugees when they are displaced by an environmental event and then imagine the impact of a hundred million or more. Here is Manhattan. This is the World Trade Center memorial site. After the horrible events of 9/11 we said never again. This is what would happen to Manhattan. They can measure this precisely, just as scientists could predict precisely how much water would breach the levee in New Orleans."[20]
   • Justice Burton's view: "This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore's 'wake-up call'. It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and over, millennia, so that the Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus."[19]
   • Other scientific views: Gore does not say that the sea level would rise 7 metres in the immediate future, though he says that such a rise is a possibility (without specifying the timeframe). The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report predicts that the sea level could rise up to 59 cm by 2100, but excludes any effects from melting in Greenland and Antarctica because of the scientific uncertainties in predicting that scenario. While many scientists believe that neither land mass will melt significantly in the next century,[21] NASA climatologist James E. Hansen has predicted a major increase in sea level on the order of several metres by the end of the 21st century.[21]
2. Low-lying islands in the Pacific Ocean are having to be evacuated because of the effects of global warming.
   • Gore's view: "[T]hat's why the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand."[20]
   • Justice Burton's view: "There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened."[19]
   • Other scientific views: The inhabitants of the Carteret Islands in Papua New Guinea announced in 2005 that they would evacuate the islands and move to the much larger Bougainville Island, as their homeland was expected to be submerged by 2015.[21][22] The cause of the islands' submersion is a matter of debate; a United Nations official suggested that a local fishing practice of destroying reefs with dynamite might be responsible.[23]
3. The Gulf Stream would be shut down by global warming, causing sharp cooling in northwest Europe.
   • Gore's view: "One of the [scenarios] they are most worried about where they have spent a lot of time studying the problem is the North Atlantic, where the Gulf Stream comes up and meets the cold wind coming off the Arctic over Greenland and evaporates the heat out of the Gulf Stream and the stream is carried over to western Europe by the prevailing winds and the earth's rotation ... they call it the Ocean Conveyor. At the end of the last ice age … that pump shut off and the heat transfer stopped and Europe went back into an ice age for another 900 or 1,000 years. Of course that's not going to happen again, because glaciers of North America are not there. Is there any big chunk of ice anywhere near there? Oh yeah. [points at Greenland]"[20]
   • Justice Burton's view: "According to the IPCC, it is very unlikely that the Ocean Conveyor (known technically as the Meridional Overturning Circulation orthermohaline circulation) will shut down in the future, though it is considered likely that thermohaline circulation may slow down."[19]
   • Other scientific views: A group of 12 climatologists was surveyed on this question in 2006 by Kirsten Zickfeld of the University of Victoria, Canada. Assuming a temperature rise of 4 °C (7.2 °F) by 2100, eight of them assessed the probability of thermohaline circulation collapse as significantly above zero; three estimated a probability of 40% or higher.[24]
4. There was an exact fit between graphs showing changes in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and global temperatures over a period of 650,000 years.
   • Gore's view: "In all of this time, 650,000 years, the CO
     2 level has never gone above 300 parts per million. ... The relationship is very complicated. But there is one relationship that is more powerful than all the others and it is this. When there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer, because it traps more heat from the sun inside."[20]
   • Justice Burton's view: "Mr Gore shows two graphs relating to a period of 650,000 years, one showing rise in CO
     2 and one showing rise in temperature, and asserts (by ridiculing the opposite view) that they show an exact fit. Although there is general scientific agreement that there is a connection, the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts."[19]
   • Other scientific views: Global warming episodes at the end of ice ages have not been triggered by rises in atmospheric CO
     2. However, this does not disprove the proposition that CO
     2 warms the atmosphere and that rising emissions of CO
     2 are the principal cause of global warming today.[21]
5. The disappearance of snow on Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania was due to global warming.
   • Gore's view: "And now we're beginning to see the impact in the real world. This is Mount Kilimanjaro more than 30 years ago, and more recently. And a friend of mine just came back from Kilimanjaro with a picture he took a couple of months ago."[20]
   • Justice Burton's view: "Mr Gore asserts in scene 7 that the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro is expressly attributable to global warming. It is noteworthy that this is a point that specifically impressed Mr Miliband (see the press release quoted at paragraph 6 above). However, it is common ground that, the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change."[19]
   • Other scientific views: A 2006 study by a group at the University of Innsbruck concluded that "rather than changes in 20th century climate being responsible for [the glaciers'] demise, glaciers on Kilimanjaro appear to be remnants of a past climate that was once able to sustain them."[25]
6. The shrinkage of Lake Chad in Africa was caused by global warming.
   • Gore's view: "This is Lake Chad, once one of the largest lakes in the world. It has dried up over the last few decades to almost nothing."[20]
   • Justice Burton's view: The drying up of Lake Chad is used as a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming. However, it is generally accepted that the evidence remains insufficient to establish such an attribution. It is apparently considered to be far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability.[19]
   • Other scientific views: A NASA study released in 2001 concluded that Lake Chad's shrinkage resulted from a combination of irrigation demands and climate change: "Using model and climate data, Coe and Foley calculate that a 30% decrease took place in the lake between 1966 and 1975. Irrigation only accounted for 5% of that decrease, with drier conditions accounting for the remainder. They noticed that irrigation demands increased four-fold between 1983 and 1994, accounting for 50% of the additional decrease in the size of the lake."[26]
7. Hurricane Katrina was likewise caused by global warming.
   • Gore's view: "And then of course came Katrina. It is worth remembering that when it hit Florida it was a Category 1, but it killed a lot of people and caused billions of dollars worth of damage. And then, what happened? Before it hit New Orleans, it went over warmer water. As the water temperature increases, the wind velocity increases and the moisture content increases. And you'll see Hurricane Katrina form over Florida. And then as it comes into the Gulf over warm water it becomes stronger and stronger and stronger. Look at that Hurricane's eye. And of course the consequences were so horrendous; there are no words to describe it. ... There had been warnings that hurricanes would get stronger. There were warnings that this hurricane, days before it hit, would breach the levies and cause the kind of damage that it ultimately did cause."[20]
   • Justice Burton's view: "In scene 12 Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans is ascribed to global warming. It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that."[19]
   • Other scientific views: The World Meteorological Organization explains that "though there is evidence both for and against the existence of a detectable anthropogenic signal in the tropical cyclone climate record to date, no firm conclusion can be made on this point."[27] They also clarified that "no individual tropical cyclone can be directly attributed to climate change."[27]
8. Polar bears were being found drowned after having to swim long distances to find the (melting) ice.
   • Gore's view: "That's not good for creatures like polar bears that depend on the ice. A new scientific study shows that for the first time they're finding polar bears that have actually drowned, swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice. They did not find that before."[20]
   • Justice Burton's view: "The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm. That is not to say that there may not in the future be drowning-related deaths of polar bears if the trend continues."[19]
   • Other scientific views: The study in question is a September 2004 paper in Polar Biology which describes the unprecedented discovery of four drowned polar bears in the Beaufort Sea off Alaska.[28] The paper's lead author "doubts this was simply the result of exhaustion from having to swim further from ice to shore. More likely, weather conditions are becoming more severe in the growing expanses of open water, making swimming more difficult."[21]
9. Coral reefs were being bleached by the effects of global warming and other factors.
   • Gore's view: "Coral reefs all over the world because of global warming and other factors are bleaching and they end up like this. All the fish species that depend on the coral reef are also in jeopardy as a result. Overall species loss is now occurring at a rate 1,000 times greater than the natural background rate."[20]
   • Justice Burton's view: "The actual scientific view, as recorded in the IPCC report, is that, if the temperature were to rise by 1–3°C, there would be increased coral bleaching and widespread coral mortality, unless corals could adopt [sic] or acclimatise, but that separating the impacts of climate change-related stresses from other stresses, such as over-fishing and polluting, is difficult."[19]
   • Other scientific views: The most recent IPCC report does indeed state that most corals would bleach if temperatures rose more than 1°C over levels in the 1980s and 1990s. With the current rate of increase, further coral bleaching is considered highly likely. The rise in temperatures is also increasing the incidence of disease in corals, accelerating the rate of bleaching.[21]

 

[Old Rocks]

Yet two pages from now the little twits will be repeating the same lies concerning what the judge said.

 

[SSDD]

PS, I think you meant to say there's a correlation between CO2 and temperature IN ice cores. I do not actually believe there is a correlation between the gas "AND ICE CORES" because the statement is meaningless.

Did you find any punctuation or spelling errors?....you will crawl right down in the sewer to feel that you have scored a point no matter how small, or trivially insignificant it is won't you? You have my deepest pity....congratulations.

 

[LaDexter]

the judge identified NINE "inaccuracies" in the film, not eleven.

This is like the highly correlated satellite and balloon data...

The Tippys (warmers) know that acknowledging the TRUTH of the DATA that Antarctic ice has been growing EVERY YEAR since Algore first started lying is FATAL to continuously bilking the taxpayer with this hoax.

They will lie, deny, make you post the same links 400000 times, and then insult you, change the subject, and go right on insisting that Antarctica is "melting..."


ANTARCTIC ICE HAS GROWN EVERY YEAR FOR THE PAST 100,000 years plus.

There is NO EVIDENCE that it hasn't. Every year the NASA satellite measures it, the ice increases, EVERY YEAR...


NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses


"According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008."



EVERY SINGLE LIFE FORM WHO HAS EVER SUGGESTED THAT ANTARCTICA WAS DOING ANYTHING BUT ADDING ICE EVERY YEAR IS ENGAGED IN FRAUD, EMBEZZLEMENT, and TREASON

 

[jc456]

Wrong. Try again.

Who's wrong? Ever post your excerpt to backup your claim? Nope.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

that would be due to outgassing from warmer seas that hold less CO2 than cold seas.

Or, as land moves away from a pole and ice melts, more land then can produce plant life, and that makes CO2 go up.

Or, as land moves away from a pole and ice melts,

How far did North America have to move to make the ice sheet on top of Chicago melt?

 

[LaDexter]

Chicago was outside of the Arctic Circle when it melted. The real issue is where the land is closest to the pole. If the land mass, NA in this example, moves beyond 600 or so miles from a pole, the "glacier manufacturing" slows/equalizes/stops. Ice ages require land to be within 600 miles of an Earth pole to "manufacture" ice age glacier.


What happened at the top of Northern Canada is speculative, as all those islands were buried under ice age glaciers 1 mil years ago. With the Arctic Ocean "coming in" with an active fault in Gakkel Ridge, you have the potential for a lot of magma heat squirting up and doing a lot of temporary melting. If you've seen the 2005 and 2007 Arctic sea ice minimum photos, you'll see all the melting is over Gakkel Ridge, and the NA side is really unchanged.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Chicago was outside of the Arctic Circle when it melted. The real issue is where the land is closest to the pole. If the land mass, NA in this example, moves beyond 600 or so miles from a pole, the "glacier manufacturing" slows/equalizes/stops. Ice ages require land to be within 600 miles of an Earth pole to "manufacture" ice age glacier.


What happened at the top of Northern Canada is speculative, as all those islands were buried under ice age glaciers 1 mil years ago. With the Arctic Ocean "coming in" with an active fault in Gakkel Ridge, you have the potential for a lot of magma heat squirting up and doing a lot of temporary melting. If you've seen the 2005 and 2007 Arctic sea ice minimum photos, you'll see all the melting is over Gakkel Ridge, and the NA side is really unchanged.

Chicago was outside of the Arctic Circle when it melted.

Is that the only thing that melts glaciers?

If the land mass, NA in this example, moves beyond 600 or so miles from a pole, the "glacier manufacturing" slows/equalizes/stops.

The glacier formed when Chicago was less than 600 miles from the pole?

 

[Crick]

the judge identified NINE "inaccuracies" in the film, not eleven.

This is like the highly correlated satellite and balloon data...

You mean another of your absurd lies has been revealed and the rest of us just shake our heads in amazement and pity?

The Tippys (warmers) know that acknowledging the TRUTH of the DATA that Antarctic ice has been growing EVERY YEAR since Algore first started lying is FATAL to continuously bilking the taxpayer with this hoax.

Funniest thing. We were talking about Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education. Is there some reason why you don't want to talk about that anymore? You claimed that the case ended all disagreement about global warming. Do you still believe that? Have you yet identified the balloon and satellite data you've referred to over and over again? CAN YOU ACTUALLY SHOW US DATA THAT INDICATES ANTARCTIC ICE HAS BEEN GROWING EVERY YEAR? CAN YOU? CAUSE YOU HAVEN'T DONE IT YET.

They will lie, deny, make you post the same links 400000 times, and then insult you, change the subject, and go right on insisting that Antarctica is "melting..."

To paraphrase you, 400000 times zero is still zero.

ANTARCTIC ICE HAS GROWN EVERY YEAR FOR THE PAST 100,000 years plus.

And you have some data to show that?

There is NO EVIDENCE that it hasn't. Every year the NASA satellite measures it, the ice increases, EVERY YEAR...

"There is no evidence that it hasn't" Wow... now THAT is a sales job of the highest caliber. And satellite measurements over 100,000 years ago? Are you and I in the same universe?

NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses

Just checking, but you do understand the difference between ice extents and mass balance, don't you. Cause, well, you act as if you do not.

"According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008."

A quote from Zwally. His is still the only study to show a positive mass balance - over a dozen other studies found negative mass balances and, as far as anything I've heard, no one in the field agrees with him.

EVERY SINGLE LIFE FORM WHO HAS EVER SUGGESTED THAT ANTARCTICA WAS DOING ANYTHING BUT ADDING ICE EVERY YEAR IS ENGAGED IN FRAUD, EMBEZZLEMENT, and TREASON

Life form? Life form? If you're trying to get back from La La Land, you're heading in the wrong direction.

 

[jc456]

that would be due to outgassing from warmer seas that hold less CO2 than cold seas.

Or, as land moves away from a pole and ice melts, more land then can produce plant life, and that makes CO2 go up.

Or, as land moves away from a pole and ice melts,

How far did North America have to move to make the ice sheet on top of Chicago melt?

it's too bad the Chicago Tribune wasn't there to log the date. LOL

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

that would be due to outgassing from warmer seas that hold less CO2 than cold seas.

Or, as land moves away from a pole and ice melts, more land then can produce plant life, and that makes CO2 go up.

Or, as land moves away from a pole and ice melts,

How far did North America have to move to make the ice sheet on top of Chicago melt?

it's too bad the Chicago Tribune wasn't there to log the date. LOL

It was in the Daily News.

 

[jc456]

that would be due to outgassing from warmer seas that hold less CO2 than cold seas.

Or, as land moves away from a pole and ice melts, more land then can produce plant life, and that makes CO2 go up.

Or, as land moves away from a pole and ice melts,

How far did North America have to move to make the ice sheet on top of Chicago melt?

it's too bad the Chicago Tribune wasn't there to log the date. LOL

It was in the Daily News.

great, let's see the article.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

that would be due to outgassing from warmer seas that hold less CO2 than cold seas.

Or, as land moves away from a pole and ice melts, more land then can produce plant life, and that makes CO2 go up.

Or, as land moves away from a pole and ice melts,

How far did North America have to move to make the ice sheet on top of Chicago melt?

it's too bad the Chicago Tribune wasn't there to log the date. LOL

It was in the Daily News.

great, let's see the article.

The glacier put them out of business.