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

[BOLCATS]

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.



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

As you know, the cooler temperatures of the little ice age followed the various sun spot minimums by decades not contemporaneously. We have one weak solar cycle..number 24. That is not enough to start driving temperatures down. What we do have however, is a stall in temperatures since the late 90's. RSS shows that there has been no rise in temperature in 18 years. Solar cycle 24 could be responsible for that.

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

Suns magnetic field

The strength of the Sun's magnetic field has doubled during the 20th Century, according to calculations by British scientists. This finding will help to clarify the Sun's contribution to climate change on the Earth. A team at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory near Oxford has been able to work out the recent history of the Sun's magnetic behaviour, thanks to the unprecedented overview of solar magnetism provided by the ESA-NASA spacecraft Ulysses.

The prior comment coming from the following paper:
The paper, "A doubling of the Sun's coronal magnetic field during the past 100 years" by M. Lockwood, R. Stamper and M.N. Wild, is published in the journal Nature, 3 June 1999, vol. 399, pp. 437-9. The comments by E.N. Parker are in the same issue, pp. 416-7.

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

You are only thinking about the greenhouse effect. You think that is the only thing that could possibly raise the temperature of the earth? Also, CO2 is only alone in absorbing from 4 to 4.5 micrometers. Water is the sole occupier of most of the microwave distribution in absorbing. The next biggest occupier is ozone. How is this a smoking gun for CO2?

 

[The Barbarian]

As you know, the cooler temperatures of the little ice age followed the various sun spot minimums by decades not contemporaneously.

Well, let's take a look... (Barbarian checks)

No, it looks pretty consistently in step with temps. In fact, there's a somewhat controversial argument that until about 1970, solar activity was the major determinant.

Thereafter, something else was driving it. There's very good data showing it is CO2.

We have one weak solar cycle..number 24. That is not enough to start driving temperatures down. What we do have however, is a stall in temperatures since the late 90's. RSS shows that there has been no rise in temperature in 18 years. Solar cycle 24 could be responsible for that.

Let's see...

I don't see that. Would you like me to a regression line on the data from the last 18 years? (odd number; was it uncharacteristically hot 18 years ago?)

Sample size: 18
Mean x (x̄): 9.5
Mean y (ȳ): 56.277777777778
Intercept (a): 48.248366013072
Slope (b): 0.84520123839009
Regression line equation: y=48.248366013072+0.84520123839009x


Correlation coefficient (r): 0.542594234046

Which is a pretty good fit to the data, showing a rather strong upward trend over 18 years.

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

Suns magnetic field

Hmm... forgot what you were saying about it. I'll go back and look in a bit.
Edit: Usually, the Sun's magnetic field is high, begins to drop, and then as it goes nearly to zero, it flips polarity. So it's fluctuated a lot over the past few centuries. Happens about once every decade, I think.

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

You are only thinking about the greenhouse effect.

No, for example, (as you suggested) the sunspot minimum seems to have blunted, but not quite stopped, the upward trend. So, there are other factors. The key is that for the last forty years or so, CO2 has been the dominant factor.

You think that is the only thing that could possibly raise the temperature of the earth?

Reduction in albedo, say fewer clouds, could do it. Grearter solar output could do it. We don't seem to have any of that going on.

Also, CO2 is only alone in absorbing from 4 to 4.5 micrometers. Water is the sole occupier of most of the microwave distribution in absorbing. The next biggest occupier is ozone. How is this a smoking gun for CO2?

Because CO2 is blocking infrared in wavelenths not covered by other greenhouse gases. And it's a little more complicarted than you indicated:

 

[BOLCATS]

I don't see that. Would you like me to a regression line on the data from the last 18 years? (odd number; was it uncharacteristically hot 18 years ago?)

 

[BOLCATS]

Hmm... forgot what you were saying about it. I'll go back and look in a bit.

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

Edit: Usually, the Sun's magnetic field is high, begins to drop, and then as it goes nearly to zero, it flips polarity. So it's fluctuated a lot over the past few centuries. Happens about once every decade, I think.

The strength of the Sun's magnetic field has doubled during the 20th Century, according to calculations by British scientists. This finding will help to clarify the Sun's contribution to climate change on the Earth. A team at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory near Oxford has been able to work out the recent history of the Sun's magnetic behaviour, thanks to the unprecedented overview of solar magnetism provided by the ESA-NASA spacecraft Ulysses.

The prior comment coming from the following paper:
The paper, "A doubling of the Sun's coronal magnetic field during the past 100 years" by M. Lockwood, R. Stamper and M.N. Wild, is published in the journal Nature, 3 June 1999, vol. 399, pp. 437-9. The comments by E.N. Parker are in the same issue, pp. 416-7.

The point is that prior to solar cycle 24, the 20th century saw a doubling of the solar magnetic field from the little ice period. To me, this is enough to cause the rise in temperatures of the 20 th century. I believe the rise in temperatures since 1950 is due to the ban on chlorfluorocarbons. They were increasingly in use up until their ban and they have been slowly decreasing in concentration in the atmosphere since. The rise is temperature from 1950 until 1998 can ben explained by this fact in my opinion.

 

[The Barbarian]

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/clip_image0025.jpg

This doesn't match up with the GISS data. Do you have the dataset from which this one was made?

I went back and graphed the actual GISS data for each year:

Black line is the regression line.

That's what we have for the past 18 years. As you see, the temps have gone up significantly over that time.

 

[BOLCATS]

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/clip_image0025.jpg

This doesn't match up with the GISS data. Do you have the dataset from which this one was made?

I went back and graphed the actual GISS data for each year:

Black line is the regression line.

That's what we have for the past 18 years. As you see, the temps have gone up significantly over that time.

GISS is different than satellite data. They take huge guesses in the arctic regions. They can basically make whatever trend they choose to by what guesstimates they make in those regions.

The following from Hadcrut4gl shows a 19 year pause. UAH even shows a 12 year pause I think. GISS is the only one not showing a pause from what I can see. There might even be a pause in the GISS if you choose a different starting point. Do you trust one land based dataset that is continually being adjusted over two satellite ones that are globally covered? Again, here is the Hadcrut chart from 1995.

 

[BOLCATS]

Because CO2 is blocking infrared in wavelenths not covered by other greenhouse gases. And it's a little more complicarted than you indicated:

Why would the fact that CO2 is blocking infrared in a narrow band not covered by other greenhouse gases be a reason to give it more power than water or other greenhouse gases when water is blocking infrared in a very wide band not covered by other greenhouse gases? I guess you are saying water has always been there and CO2 has not and is the only one increasing in concentration?

What difference does it make if the radiation in the particular frequency is already being absorbed by lower concentration of CO2? Any additional CO2 cannot absorb radiation that doesn't exist.

If you make the point that the additional CO2 is absorbing radiation that is being reemitted from greenhouse gases, you are assuming the emitted radiation is also in that narrow band. Don't know if that is true, but intuition says no.

 

[aikido7]

What Gore is talking about makes sense if you can admit that the deniers and the bigots have an inability to empathize and take in facts, evidence and honest data.

As the famous economist John Stuart Mill once said:

I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it.
.

 

[The Barbarian]

Why would the fact that CO2 is blocking infrared in a narrow band not covered by other greenhouse gases be a reason to give it more power than water or other greenhouse gases when water is blocking infrared in a very wide band not covered by other greenhouse gases?

It just gives it a lot more effect than it it only blocked radiation at the wavelengths that others did. If you had six holes in a boat taking in water, and you drilled another hole, would the water come in faster?

I guess you are saying water has always been there and CO2 has not and is the only one increasing in concentration?

Methane is also an issue. We are seeing a slight increase in methane, but not as much as CO2. And there is an issue with water vapor. As the oceans warm up (and so far, most of the thermal energy caused by CO2 has been absorbed by the oceans) they evaporate more water, and so the atmosphere increases in water vapor. This is why warming was predicted to result in more winter snowstorms.

What difference does it make if the radiation in the particular frequency is already being absorbed by lower concentration of CO2? Any additional CO2 cannot absorb radiation that doesn't exist.

The amount of radiation that is blocked is related to the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

The greater the concentration, the more opaque the atmosphere will be to infrared.

 

[The Barbarian]

I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it.

I know what he meant, but there are too many intelligent conservatives to make it very useful as a guide to dealing with them.

I suppose there's a bimodal distribution regarding conservatives and intelligence.

 

[kmoney]

Study: Wind farms killed 67 eagles in 5 years

Would you be concerned about those eagles if their habitat was being disturbed by the building of a coal powered plant? :yawn:

 

[The Barbarian]

The graph of HADCRUT data shows a marked upward trend. It's clear enough that you can look at it and see. Try to draw a straight line through the data such that you have as many points as possible as close to the line as possible. If you give me the numbers, I can calculate it for you, but the regression line will show an upward trend.

BTW, here's the HADCRUT4GL data:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4.pdf

And this one is interesting. It's the HADCRUT4gl data, adjusted for solar activity:

http://file.scirp.org/Html/8-4700240\04cf9c6c-85ce-4f68-afaf-ca16dfa18531.jpg

The question whether human activities seriously affect climate is asked with increasing voice these days. Quite understandable since the climate appears to be out of control with the significant global temperature increases already seen during the last three decades and with still heavier temperature increases to come in the future according to prognoses, among others, in the recent comprehensive IPCC reports [1]. However, the most recent climate data [2], show global temperature development levelling off or even turning negative since 2001 in contrast to the anticipated course related to the steady increases in the concentration in the atmosphere of green-house gasses, primarily carbon dioxide and methane [1]. The purpose of this communication is to demonstrate that the reduced rate in the global temperature rise complies with expectations related to the decaying level of solar activity according to the relation published in an earlier analysis [3]. Without the reduction in the solar activity-related contributions the global temperatures would have increased steadily from 1980 to present.
http://file.scirp.org/Html/8-4700240_41752.htm

However, this didn't last. Last year was hottest on record, and this year is looking like another record year.

 

[The Barbarian]

Would you be concerned about those eagles if their habitat was being disturbed by the building of a coal powered plant?

It would be interesting to see how many of them were objecting to DDT, because it harmed eagles. I think I already know the answer.

 

[aikido7]

Not me, I like having a bigger market.

I wholeheartedly agree, but I see today's market as mediated through the lens of corporate influence. The worship of market economics has been a disaster in some key areas.

But that's just my own "lens." Others, I know, see it way differently.

 

[aikido7]

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.

Exactly. And I apologize for doing "character assassination of Christians."

But if you are going to hang that opinion around my neck, I think you should be accountable and direct and show me specifically the words, terms and phrases that clearly demonstrate your claim.

I have noticed for years that bringing up history and context that might challenge someone's faith has more to do with their own defensive reactions than anything I say.

I try to post with respect and fairness, but alas that does not always happen.

So any examples you can come up with would greatly benefit me.

Thanks in advance!

 

[serpentdove]

Obama plans more 'executive actions' on environment :Nineveh:

...Will use IRS Ge 8:22, Ex 20:15

 

[serpentdove]

Scientists warn sun will 'go to sleep' in 2030

Temperatures to plummet Ge 8:22

 

[serpentdove]

After Iran Win, Obama Plans Aggressive Action On Climate Ge 8:22

 

[ok doser]

your thread is on the verge of achieving relevancy! :first:

 

[Lexington'96]

It's a sad statement on our society that Al Gore didn't become irrelevant after his failed Presidential bid.