Gore likens 'global warming' skeptics to racists, supporters of apartheid and homopho

[The Barbarian]

Perhaps the data covers such a short period of time, it doesn't really tell you if the current trend is beyond what has been happening since the ice age ended.

Until we could fly over, it was a little hard to get real data on Arctic ice. But at the end of the last ice age, the ice extended down to about southern Iowa, so it's pretty clear it was colder then.

I'm not sure how far back we have good data... (Barbarian checks)

Goes back to the late 70s, and from there at least, it's fallen considerably.

 

[Ktoyou]

Gore likens 'global warming' skeptics to racists, supporters of apartheid and homophobes

Hey serpentdove, you are OK with me.
I would like to ask you a question?
Suppose ole Gore thought I was outright against the global warming idea, and he thought I was a racist, a supporter of apartheid and a homo-hater. Now let us just suppose. What can he do about that? What can anyone do about it?

 

[rocketman]

He starts out his article with a lie. It was not a bitterly cold winter, unless you happened to live in the eastern US. Pretty much everywhere else on Earth, it was a warm winter. It's called global warming, not eastern US warming.

You should read the entire article genius, it also goes on to address global temperatures as well. I know all you libs have invested greatly into continuing with this sham but, at some point the data cannot be skewed enough to support your lie much further.

It is not just the winter, either. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data show the United States has been cooling for the past decade. Nor is it just the United States defying alarmist predictions. Global temperature data show no global warming since the late 1990s and very little global warming for the past 45 years.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/02/25/cold-and-snow-destroy-global-warming-claims/

Same article, following paragraph...

 

[The Barbarian]

Nor is it just the United States defying alarmist predictions. Global temperature data show no global warming since the late 1990s and very little global warming for the past 45 years.

Well, let's take a look. The land/ocean global temp anomalies for many decades are here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

Notice that 45 years ago, the anomaly was -13. There were five negative results that decade, but there hasn't been one since.

Last year was the hottest on record. Only one year prior to 2000 was as warm as any year thereafter.

And the graph of that data, from four independent sources:

You're a sucker only as long as you depend on them, instead of looking at the data.

 

[BOLCATS]

Until we could fly over, it was a little hard to get real data on Arctic ice. But at the end of the last ice age, the ice extended down to about southern Iowa, so it's pretty clear it was colder then.

I'm not sure how far back we have good data... (Barbarian checks)

Goes back to the late 70s, and from there at least, it's fallen considerably.

How many times in the past did we have data as good as now? None. We subjectively say the ice amount has fallen considerably since 1970. If it has fallen " considerably" many times since 24,000 b.c. , why do we insist the current loss is due to the greenhouse effect?

 

[rexlunae]

You should read the entire article genius, it also goes on to address global temperatures as well. I know all you libs have invested greatly into continuing with this sham but, at some point the data cannot be skewed enough to support your lie much further.

It is not just the winter, either. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data show the United States has been cooling for the past decade. Nor is it just the United States defying alarmist predictions. Global temperature data show no global warming since the late 1990s and very little global warming for the past 45 years.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/02/25/cold-and-snow-destroy-global-warming-claims/

Same article, following paragraph...

None of that, even if it were true, changes the fact that the claim at the top of the article is a lie. It was not a cold winter on a global scale at all. It was cold in the Eastern US. Globally, it was warmer than usual.

 

[The Barbarian]

How many times in the past did we have data as good as now? None. We subjectively say the ice amount has fallen considerably since 1970. If it has fallen " considerably" many times since 24,000 b.c. , why do we insist the current loss is due to the greenhouse effect?

Good question. In the past, it appears that ice was greater and persisted longer into the summer in years when temps were lower than normal. Examples are the Maunder Minimum and other periods of sunspot minima.

However, we are in such a period now, and the ice should be growing along with falling temps. But it's declining, and temps are rising. Something is interfering with the natural cycle.

Scientists have discovered that rising CO2 is the culprit. It is especially harmful, since it absorbs infrared at frequencies other greenhouse gases do not.

 

[BOLCATS]

Good question. In the past, it appears that ice was greater and persisted longer into the summer in years when temps were lower than normal. Examples are the Maunder Minimum and other periods of sunspot minima.

However, we are in such a period now, and the ice should be growing along with falling temps. But it's declining, and temps are rising. Something is interfering with the natural cycle.

Scientists have discovered that rising CO2 is the culprit. It is especially harmful, since it absorbs infrared at frequencies other greenhouse gases do not.

Are we really in such a period now? As I understand it, the suns magnetic shield is currently twice as strong as it was 200 years ago. Evidently , sunspots alone are not the whole story. All scientists have isolated co2 as the culprit? Do they have an exact figure on the amount of solar insolation over the last 65 years? If that has decreased by as little as 2%, the rise in temperature would vastly outweigh any theoretical increase due to co2. Co2 may absorb at intervals other gasses do not, but it cannot absorb what isn't there. Do scientists know all co2 concentrations greater than preindustrial levels have any effect grrater than preindustrial levels? That excess co2 cannot absorb radiation that has already been absorbed. Co2 concentration drops off rapidly as you go higher in elevation. The radiation released by water vapor and such is at a higher elevation than vast majority of co2 and so the extra heat retained by higher levels of co2 can only have diminishing results at best.

 

[rocketman]

None of that, even if it were true, changes the fact that the claim at the top of the article is a lie. It was not a cold winter on a global scale at all. It was cold in the Eastern US. Globally, it was warmer than usual.

Keep holding on to that lie...:chuckle:

 

[rexlunae]

Keep holding on to that lie...:chuckle:

You mean that measurable fact.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201501

I know it's frustrating that the facts don't just change because you don't like them, but they are what they are.

 

[aikido7]

Racists, bigots and climate-change deniers have one thing in common. I shouldn't have to remind you what that is.

 

[BOLCATS]

Racists, bigots and climate-change deniers have one thing in common. I shouldn't have to remind you what that is.

You mean people who dont assign as much power to a gas you breath out daily as you do are bigots? Please explain

 

[The Barbarian]

Are we really in such a period now?

Yep.

2013:
Initial predictions by scientists at the start of Cycle #24 was for the sunspot number to have reached 90 by August 2013; but here it is the end of July, and we’re sitting at 68, and it seems that we’ll round out the northern hemisphere Summer at a sunspot number of 70 or so.

Some researchers predict that the following sunspot Cycle #25 may even be absent all together.

“If this trend continues, there will be almost no spots in Cycle 25,” Noted Matthew Penn of the National Solar Observatory, hinting that we may be on the edge of another Maunder Minimum.
http://www.universetoday.com/103803/solar-cycle-24-on-track-to-be-the-weakest-in-100-years/

2014:
Austin, August 16, 2014 – A rare spotless day on the sun on July 17-18, 2014 triggered public speculation that an already stunted Cycle 24 was nearly over. Such is not the case. Defying the odds for so late in a sunspot cycle, another solar sunspot maximum was set last month. Another one is coming this month.

In other major news, a long needed revision to the 400-year sunspot record was proposed. It’ll be the first change made to the sunspot record since it was first established by Rudolf Wolf back in 1849. The changes will affect long-term climate and other dependent scientific studies.

One effect of the proposal will be to reduce modern sunspot totals. That will wipe out the so-called “Modern Maximum” and make the current sunspot cycle, Cycle 24, the weakest in 200 years.
https://informthepundits.wordpress.com/2014/08/17/sunspots-2014-two-big-surprises/

2015:
11:00 AM | *The sun has gone quiet again during the weakest solar cycle in more than a century
http://vencoreweather.com/2015/02/17/29475/

As you know, reduced sunspot activity should be accompanied by reduced temperatures. Instead, it's getting hotter.

As I understand it, the suns magnetic shield is currently twice as strong as it was 200 years ago.

Magnetic shield? You mean "magnetic field?" Or you mean Earth's magnetic shield?

Evidently , sunspots alone are not the whole story. All scientists have isolated co2 as the culprit?

The smoking gun was the discovery of the wavelengths at which it absorbs.

Do they have an exact figure on the amount of solar insolation over the last 65 years?

Science never gets an "exact" measure of anything. Always error bars. Precision is possible in science; exactitude is not.

If that has decreased by as little as 2%, the rise in temperature would vastly outweigh any theoretical increase due to co2. Co2 may absorb at intervals other gasses do not, but it cannot absorb what isn't there.

The Earth is always emitting heat. It's much warmer than space, so it loses infrared radiation. CO2 traps more of it, elevating temps.

Do scientists know all co2 concentrations greater than preindustrial levels have any effect grrater than preindustrial levels?

Yep.

That excess co2 cannot absorb radiation that has already been absorbed.

You are correct. For example, if it absorbed radiation only at the wavelengths absorbed by water vapor, it wouldn't have nearly the impact it does.

Co2 concentration drops off rapidly as you go higher in elevation. The radiation released by water vapor and such is at a higher elevation than vast majority of co2 and so the extra heat retained by higher levels of co2 can only have diminishing results at best.

It's the surface radiation that gets trapped, mostly. The upper atmosphere is rather different than the case at surface level.

 

[aikido7]

You mean people who dont assign as much power to a gas you breath out daily as you do are bigots? Please explain

Most Christians as well as conservative ideologues have trouble dealing with life in a global culture. Their very hysterical defensiveness proves they feel continually under attack.

This is why, in my view, they immediately retreat into a sense of victimhood and being talked down to by anyone who talks about scientific or political fact, evidence and honest data.

Does that make sense to you?

 

[User Name]

 

[aikido7]

Since this is a fact-filled, evidence-based demonstration of honest data, then perhaps those more ideologically conservative should conclude that scientists think they are better than them and will always try to confuse them while talking down to them.

That defensive maneuver can help the climate change denier to conclude that man-made change is a hoax because Senator Jim Inhoff brought a snowball into the congressional chambers.

 

[Ktoyou]

Most Christians as well as conservative ideologues have trouble dealing with life in a global culture. Their very hysterical defensiveness proves they feel continually under attack.
.................

Not me, I like having a bigger market.

 

[PureX]

Gore likens 'global warming' skeptics to racists, supporters of apartheid and homophobes

Actually, what he was "likening" was the willful ignorance of each of these groups, and how it was eventually overcome in the mainstream of ideas.

 

[The Barbarian]

Not me, I like having a bigger market.

In theory, a global market with modern communication and transport should be as efficient as any market could be. Assuming we don't mess it up.

 

[BOLCATS]

Most Christians as well as conservative ideologues have trouble dealing with life in a global culture. Their very hysterical defensiveness proves they feel continually under attack.

This is why, in my view, they immediately retreat into a sense of victimhood and being talked down to by anyone who talks about scientific or political fact, evidence and honest data.

Does that make sense to you?

I see you doing character assassination of conservatives and Christians without basis. You project your perception of these groups into their "reaction" to facts etc. The problem is that it is not the mere presentation of facts that are reacted to. It is the interpretation of those facts and how they erroneously used to support claims. It is the unsupported claims that are reacted to; not the facts themselves.