Global warming milestone about to be passed and there's no going back.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: notmyrealname
What predictions did Al Gore make that have "come to be false?"

scottthong.wordpress.com...

1. Sea level “rising 6 m”
Even the IPCC’s maximum estimate is a mere 59cm… In the year 2100.

2. Pacific islands “drowning”
They aren’t. The sea levels around the Maldives haven’t changed for 1250 years. Same goes for Vanuatu.

3. Thermohaline circulation “stopping”
In reality, it is strengthening.

4. CO2 “driving temperature”
It is a clear and well accepted fact that temperature drives CO2 levels.

5. Snows of Kilimanjaro “melting”
Temperature at the summit never rises above freezing. Most of the melt occured before 1936.

6. Lake Chad “drying up”
It also dried up in 8500BC, 5500BC, 1000BC and 100BC. Where was our carbon-polluting human industry then?

7. Hurricane Katrina “man made”
Maximum hurricane wind speed and number of hurricanes has not increased.

HurricanesNoWorse

8. Polar bears “dying”
Four bears died in a storm. Four. Measly. Bears. Meanwhile, there are 25000 polar bears today compared to 5000 in 1940.

9. Coral reefs “bleaching”
It was caused by an unusual El Nino pattern, not global warming.

10. 100 ppmv of CO2 “melting mile-thick ice”
Gore overstates the effect of CO2 ten times greater than even the IPCC’s highest estimate.

11. Hurricane Caterina “manmade”
Air temperatures in the area were the coldest in 25 years, not warmest.

12. Japanese typhoons “a new record”
Tropical cyclone frequency has fallen in the past 50 years.

13. Hurricanes “getting stronger”
They haven’t in 60 years.

14. Big storm insurances losses “increasing”
Insured losses in hurricane-prione areas were lower in 2005 than 1905.

15. Mumbai “flooding”
There’s been no increase in rainfall over 48 years.

16. Severe tornadoes “more frequent”
Severe tornadoes have fallen in frequency for the last 50 years. Tropical storms are also at the lowest frequency in decades.

USTornadosDecreasing

17. The sun “heats the Arctic ocean”
The ocean emits more heat than it receives from the sun.

18. Arctic “warming fastest”
It’s actually 1 degree cooler now than in 1940.

19. Greenland ice sheet “unstable”
The ice sheet did not break up during the last three times when the temperature was 5 degrees hotter than today.

20. Himalayan glacial melt waters “failing”
The snow melt which provides water has not decreased in 40 years.

21. Peruvian glaciers “disappearing”
For the past 10,000 years the Peruvian ‘glacier’ region has been mostly ice free.

22. Mountain glaciers worldwide “disappearing”
Human CO2 output has had no effect on the already-present glacier shortening trend.

HydrocarbonUseNotEffectGlacier

23. Sahara desert “drying”
In the past 25 years, the Sahara shrunk by 300,000 square kilometres due to increased rainfall.

24. West Antarctic ice sheet “unstable”
Antarctic ice is at its thickest in nearly 28 years.

25. Antarctic Peninsula ice shelves “breaking up”
Gore concentrates on the 2% of Antarctica that is experiencing some warming, while conciously neglecting to mention the 98% of Antarctica that is cooling.

26. Larsen B Ice Shelf “broke up because of ‘global warming'”
The ice shelfs have been breaking up since 10,000 years ago.

27. Mosquitoes “climbing to higher altitudes”
The graph says it all: Wrong.

MalariaLowerAltitudes

28. Many tropical diseases “spread through ‘global warming'”
None of the diseases quoted are tropical, none are affected by increasing temperature, and some even cause more harm at colder temperatures.

29. West Nile virus in the US “spread through ‘global warming'”
West Nile virus flourishes in any climate, from desert to ice.

30. Carbon dioxide is “pollution”
Forests are thriving due to the increasing CO2 levels.

31. The European heat wave of 2003 “killed 35,000”
Cold snaps kill people, but the IPCC does not include the number of lives that would be saved due to less cold weather.

32. Pied flycatchers “cannot feed their young”
A few tens of kilometres north, and there is no notable difference.

33. Gore’s bogus pictures and film footage
Gore plays fast and loose with falsely used images.

34. The Thames Barrier “closing more frequently”
It is closed to retain tidal water in the Thames.

35. “No fact…in dispute by anybody.”
Do I even have to mention these?

a reply to: notmyrealname
Again, you did not answer my question.
What predictions did Al Gore make that have "come to be false?"

You are supposed to link your external sources, btw.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: notmyrealname
What data shows the planet is cooling?

It is not that I am lazy, I just don't have the time to have long protracted debates on a subject that is likely doubtful to change my views; hey, at least I'm honest....


1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism

a reply to: notmyrealname

Maybe you shouldn't make claims you aren't prepared to support.

Regarding Al Gore and his "predictions" though. They were not predictions, they were possibilities. For example, this one:
1. Sea level “rising 6 m”
He presented no time frame so to say he was wrong is nonsense. That number is based on a complete loss of Greenland and Antarctic ice. It was a worst case scenario, not a prediction. I read the book. It was really a bad book but I did read it and I'm aware of what is actually in it as opposed to what people claim is in it.

originally posted by: Discotech
a reply to: cuckooold

The last time the Earth had this much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was more than a million years ago, when modern humans hadn’t even evolved yet.

So this is not the first time it has happened ?

What was the excuse back then when man wasn't burning fossil fuels ?

Yeah, but add in a human factor burning fossil fuels and mass deforestation a million years ago and this Planet may be a barren rock by now. Climate change happens over thousands if not tens of thousands of years. I've only been on this planet 49 years and i have noticed a huge difference in our climate here in Scotland...

Christ we dont even get seasons here the way we used to. It was snowing here 2 weeks ago. now it's been in the 60's to mid 70's for the best part of a week.

I remember a time we would get 4 weeks+ of solid sunshine in what we called Summer, June-July. December-January would bring snow to the ground that would last for weeks at a time. Now it' s Snow overnight and you can be sure it's melted by the afternoon, and our Summers can be defined as a "Taps aff" 5 days in May then it's normal service resumed.

I guess what i'm saying is. Natural climate change is one thing, Add In the human factor and we are in real trouble.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: notmyrealname
That does not say that data has been manipulated to suit an agenda. It says those people don't think IPCC models are accurate.
Did you even read it before pasting it?

(Does it really matter what a botanist thinks about climate models?)

Yes I read many of them.

The IPCC future projections: are they plausible?

Another:

Link

From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.”

Yes, it is my opinion that a scientist (even botanist) matters more than a arbitrary internet poster with no real credentials that I know of. Also, do you have an opinion on this matter, or are you here just to ask me questions about my beliefs?

a reply to: Phage

It was fear based propaganda; plain and simple. I also have a signed copy of the crappy book so, I too read it. Your stating that he was talking about 'possibilities' was not the tone of the presentation or book.

If you are looking to argue or somehow attempt to establish some sort of chat room intellectual alpha status, I suggest you find a new party to badger. I am not really interested in playing minute pedantic games with a person that doesn't have any of his own opinions on a subject and just wants to try and poke holes in others.

a reply to: notmyrealname

From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.”

The datasets were not altered. Adjustments were made to account for known biases in instrumentation. The method for the adjustments as well as the raw data are fully available.

You really think the world is cooling? Seriously?

a reply to: notmyrealname

I am not really interested in playing minute pedantic games with a person that doesn't have any of his own opinions on a subject and just wants to try and poke holes in others.

I have plenty of opinions. I am also capable of backing them up.

a reply to: Phage

Do you have a source for that or are you just going to ask that I accept it because you said it?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: notmyrealname

I am not really interested in playing minute pedantic games with a person that doesn't have any of his own opinions on a subject and just wants to try and poke holes in others.

I have plenty of opinions. I am also capable of backing them up.

I have not found any sources backing up your statements; just opinions.

originally posted by: notmyrealname
a reply to: Phage

Do you have a source for that or are you just going to ask that I accept it because you said it?

Here you go.
berkeleyearth.org...
www-users.york.ac.uk...

a reply to: CB328

Not only that, but when you remove the trees you remove the shade, which probably heats the world more and dries out the soil.

But the worst is probably all the concrete that soaks up sun during the day and radiates heat out at night.

That too, is a bigger problem than people think.

This document explain that part.

The Effect of Localized Man-Made Heat and Moisture Sources in Mesoscale Weather Modification

Human interference had altered the surface of the earth long before the present era (Thomas, 1956).
The first major change started about 7000 years ago when man developed agriculture. This led to systematic changing of forested areas to fields and pastures. Other reasons for deforestation were the needs for structural timber and lumber.
In recent times, paper requirements have led to large-scale reductions of forests. Only gradually is a systematic harvesting and replacement policy taking over. Agriculture and lumbering have undoubtedly led to mesoscale climatic changes, but these are poorly documented, although one can make some approximate guesses at their magnitude. In many instances secondary changes have been more far-reaching. After the clearing, wind and water erosion have washed or blown the top soil away. Bare rock has become exposed, and now far more extreme temperatures and lower humidities prevail where once the even-tempered mesoclimate of the forest dominated.

Stretches of Anatolia, the Spanish plateau, and some slopes of the Italian Apennines are silent witnesses to this development.

But by far the most alarming development has been the substitution of rocklike, well-compacted, impermeable surfaces for vegetated soil, a development that is the natural consequence of urbanization. Square kilometer after square kilometer has yielded to the bulldozer and has been converted to buildings, highways, and parking lots. Reservoirs and irrigation also have become important.

a reply to: cuckooold

No, a lot of those who deny AGW accept El Niño. Why are people willing to believe in the science of El Niño, but not that of AGW?

So you are saying el niño is the cause of AGW and has nothing to do with natural cycles.

There is no scientific proof that coral bleaching has anything to do with human activity. Previous bleaching of coral reefs are now almost fully recovered to their original state.
Just by doing a fly-by over the reefs doesn't say anything on the severity of the bleaching and less about the cause of it.
www.heraldsun.com.au...
If you rather like to watch a presentation on the GBR i recommend this one www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: 5StarOracle

True, humans have cut down 80% of the worlds forest, that alone is enough evidence towards higher Co2 levels in the air, there is simply not enough forest to "clean" the air.

No, that's simply not "true," as is easily confirmed online.

Actual forest loss has been about two-tenths of one percent per year since 1990. This decline has been offset by an increase in "other wooded area."

Also:

Forests cover 31 percent of the world’s land surface, just over 4 billion hectares. (One hectare = 2.47 acres.) This is down from the pre-industrial area of 5.9 billion hectares.

Source

Harte

originally posted by: notmyrealname
a reply to: cuckooold

So we be Baaaaaad Humans and we burn stuff (sorta like what happens in nature) but we are responsible for global calamity in the short timeframe of 100+- years against a 4.5 billion year old planet....

Pfffft.

What an unbelievably ignorant statement. So if "humans" were to start a nuclear war and let off all their nukes the earth would be oky doky because it does not compare with 4.5billion year old earth?

The speed of the destruction has nothing whatsoever to do with the consequences of the destruction. It's the amount of destruction that matters. We can set off two nukes in one week (earth oK) or we could set off thousands in hours....no more earth as we know it. We have been burning fossil fuels for over a hundred years although the volume in the past couple of decades is considerably higher. It is the amount of CO2 from that burning that matters.

Oh by the way "sorta like what happens in nature" is CO2 that goes round in circles. Now here is the ironic thing : the earth has been locking up carbon for billions of years and we have been releasing it in decades.

a reply to: intergalactic fire

So you are saying el niño is the cause of AGW and has nothing to do with natural cycles.

No, I've stated my point clearly twice now. If you are unable to comprehend what I am saying, that reflects more on yourself than me.

As for using Andrew Bolt from the Herald Sun as your source of information, Andrew Bolt is like Australia's answer to Anne Coulter or Bill O'Reilly. Bolt also received a criminal conviction under the Racial Discrimination Act, just in case you were wondering about which side of the political fence he falls on. You're using The Herald Sun, property of Rupert Murdoch, well known for peddling his influence in politics, and on climate change with a very heavy right-wing slant.

edition.cnn.com...

Media mogul Rupert Murdoch took to Twitter Wednesday night to weigh in on the recent volatility in global financial markets, calling small business "the only hope for growth" while decrying the regulatory obstacles standing in its way -- and pointing a finger at climate change "alarmist nonsense."

I can't take seriously the right wing nonsense sources you are using. I'm not even going to bother arguing anymore, as it's obvious your mind is already made up, and you are happy to alarmist lying sources to prove your (non-existent) arguments.

You haven't refuted any of the sources I've linked to, just responded with right-wing garbage, which also does nothing to refute the sourced linked. No, it simply gives the opinion of a convicted racist and well known climate science denier, in turn who is employed as a mouthpiece by a known right-wing influence peddler (who surprise surprise owns Fox News).

originally posted by: pikestaff
400 parts per million, not yet half of one percent, good for plant life? yes? good for food crops? yes?

Wrong! here goes (it does help to read scientific research before making statements...by the way)
"good for plant life" - not necessarily, see below
"good for food crops" - NO.

The increased CO2 does indeed cause plants to grow more but there is a downside. These plants are lower in minerals , vitamins and nutrients. So we might have more volume of food but we would have to eat more of it to get the same level of nutrition. Now this is where the "not necessarily" comes into play. This is my logical conclusion by the way : if plants are less nutritious then there has to be consequence for the animals that feed off those plants that are part of the life cycle of the plant. Got to be. Whether it is significant or not and what the consequence is I have no idea but I'm sure we will found out. Probably the hard way after it's too late.

originally posted by: stinkelbaum
didnt this site once use the moniker 'deny ignorance'.

I suspect many think it means deny your ignorance!

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: notmyrealname
a reply to: Phage

Do you have a source for that or are you just going to ask that I accept it because you said it?

Here you go.
berkeleyearth.org...
www-users.york.ac.uk...

More than two paragraphs long. I think you have forgotten the attention span problem......