Al Gore Owes Apology - Huffington Post

Huffington Post

Someone … quick … pick me up off the floor!!

I’ve been shocked and awed!

I can’t believe that the left leaning Huffington Post actually came out with this.

Huffington Post goes point by point as to why Al Gore owes everyone an apology for his global warming .. uh … now called climate change … lies.

They discuss the term itself - "climate change" – and how it’s a redundancy. They discuss how Al Gore has discouraged real debate on climate by using ridicule and his position in order to squash those who disagree with him. Past episodes of warming are discussed as well as how Al Gores version of these events is bogus. The article goes into natural ocean cycles as a cause of global warming as well as cosmic events.

This is basically the conclusion paragraph (which I agree with) -

So, let us indeed start a Manhattan Project-like mission to create alternative sources of energy. And, in the meantime, let us neither cripple our own economy by mislabeling carbon dioxide a pollutant nor discourage development in the Third World, where suffering continues unabated, day after day.

The only thing they left out was how Al Gores Carbon Credits for corporations and perhaps governments is a money making scheme of the highest order and should be fully investigated and exposed.

To Huffington Post on this.

immediate edit to fix sentence.

[edit on 1/4/2009 by FlyersFan]

reply to post by FlyersFan


Yes! .. Maybe even Al Gore will have to deny ignorance eventually. The time has come to admit the case is certainly not closed for debate with so much on the line. Solar cycles are the most logical to me. It just makes the most sense ...

Superb article! Starred and flagged

To see such a comprehensive and articulate article in a well respected left leaning outlet such as the Huffington post is a HUGE step towards ending this co2 nonsense.

And people need to get this as soon as possible. I get really nervous when scientists start talking about drastic"plan b" measures such as dumping massive amounts of sulfur into the upper atmosphere.

There is an international climate conference in my city of Copenhagen this year. I recently spoke to one of the people responsible for arranging the scientific summit that precedes it, and according to her there was not one speaker signed on that was skeptical of man-made global warming.

In other words the premise for the entire thing is that man-made co2 is the problem. Now some people I have discussed this with will come up with an argument along the lines of: "well maybe co2 is not the biggest problem, but at least we have more people caring about the environment than before"

The problem with that is put very eloquently in the article:

To be told, as I have been, by Mr. Gore, again and again, that carbon dioxide is a grave threat to humankind is not just annoying, by the way, although it is that! To re-tool our economies in an effort to suppress carbon dioxide and its imaginary effect on climate, when other, graver problems exist is, simply put, wrong. Particulate pollution, such as that causing the Asian brown cloud, is a real problem. Two billion people on Earth living without electricity, in darkened huts and hovels polluted by charcoal smoke, is a real problem.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Apology.

Apology?

Apology!

How do you apologize for perhaps one of the biggest cons perpetuated on the people of earth, besides Obama that is?

Apology not accepted



[edit on 043131p://bSunday2009 by Stormdancer777]

Originally posted by DrPaulisENKI
Maybe even Al Gore will have to deny ignorance eventually.

Not while he has such a great con going. Mr. World saviour who is getting the 'carbon credits' scheme going in full swing with corporations and countries. He won't deny ignorance until his con is exposed.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Someone … quick … pick me up off the floor!!

I’ve been shocked and awed!

I can’t believe that the left leaning Huffington Post actually came out with this.

Huffington Post goes point by point as to why Al Gore owes everyone an apology for his global warming .. uh … now called climate change … lies.

They discuss the term itself...

They discuss how Al Gore...

You do know that it is a blog opinion post written by some musician dude called Harold Ambler? After a quick persual of his website and his article, he just regurgitates the normal denier claptrap. Just what we need, another eejit playing scientist.

Pseudoscepticism transcends politics. Wouldn't be surpised he has a collection of such beliefs.

Originally posted by melatonin
[You do know that it is a blog opinion ...

Yep. That's fine. The point is that the Huffington Post carried it.
I'm really shocked and awed. And I give a to the author
as well as to the Huffington Post.

I'm sure Arianna is as ecstatic as you are.

lol

Anyway, I found from a previous blog that the dude is a big fan of 'what the bleep', figures. I'm sure he's a black-hole of quackery.

reply to post by melatonin


Instead of attempting to slander his character & criticize his taste in films, as well as what you assume to be his personal beliefs, why don't you try pointing out where he is incorrect?

I don't claim to be an expert on climate or meteorology, but I have done my share of research, and he seems quite factual & rational to me.

If it's all pseudoscience then why don't you point out to us where he is in error.

Enlighten us! I for one would be interested in hearing a rebuttal.

[edit on 4-1-2009 by MrVertigo]

Originally posted by MrVertigo
reply to post by melatonin

 

Instead of attempting to slander his character & criticize his taste in films, as well as what you assume to be his personal beliefs, why don't you try pointing out where he is incorrect?

Jeez, do I have to? It would be like shooting fish in a barrel...

I don't claim to be an expert on climate or meteorology, but I have done my share of research, and he seems quite factual & rational to me.

I'm sure he does.

If it's all pseudoscience then why don't you point out to us where he is in error.

Enlighten us! I for one would be interested in hearing a rebuttal.

I might edit this in a minute. I'll probably just link elsewhere, as it's late, the dude's an eejit and not worth much of my time.

ABE:

Lets go from the start:

This is a stupid comment:

First, the expression "climate change" itself is a redundancy, and contains a lie. Climate has always changed, and always will.

So what? The issue is the modern era of climate change, it requires a label and 'global warming' and 'climate change' are as good as any. It's no lie. It contains no suggestion that climate is ever truly stable, just a focus on this modern period of climate change.

Mr. Gore has used a famously inaccurate graph, known as the "Mann Hockey Stick," created by the scientist Michael Mann, showing that the modern rise in temperatures is unprecedented, and that the dramatic changes in climate just described did not take place. They did.

This is total BS and is like denier's tourettes. As soon as I see this rotten canard make an appearance, I know the source is a crank. There are a dozen other studies that show exactly what the original Mann et al study demonstrated. Inaccurate? I doubt Mann's study was perfect, no studies are, and it was the very first large scale proxy study. Here's a dozen more recent studies showing climate over the last 1000 years or so in the northern hemisphere:



Of course, if he looked beyond all the BS spread about the denier's echo chamber, he'd know about them.

One last thought on the expression "climate change": It is a retreat from the earlier expression used by alarmists, "manmade global warming," which was more easily debunked. There are people in Mr. Gore's camp who now use instances of cold temperatures to prove the existence of "climate change," which is absurd, obscene, even.

This is tripe. 'Global warming' and 'climate change' have tended to be used interchangeably. 'Climate change' has been used for almost 30 years, it's in an early NAS report and the IPCC has been around for about 20.

In fact, the one instance I've seen of people preferring 'climate change' over 'global warming' for propoganda/framing purposes is in a republican funded report (See the Luntz memo). It was suggested that 'climate change' should be preferred as it was less likely to scare the plebs.

Climate change is just a better term, as it covers the whole issue better than just 'warming'. I'm not sure on the last sentence, I've never seen anyone of interest suggest that transient cold temperature is indicative of climate change. Indeed, using transient instances of weather for arguments at a level of climate appears to be a favourite of his (see his blog website - oh noes, it's snowing in Las Vegas, lol), just as much as it is for the likes of his pet hate, Gore.

Indeed, it is Mr. Gore and his brethren who are flat-Earthers. Mr. Gore states, ad nauseum, that carbon dioxide rules climate in frightening and unpredictable, and new, ways. When he shows the hockey stick graph of temperature and plots it against reconstructed C02 levels in An Inconvenient Truth, he says that the two clearly have an obvious correlation.

They do. Indeed, the idea of CO2 as a GHG is based on very basic physics which has been known about for over 100 years. Flat earther indeed.

The word "complicated" here is among the most significant Mr. Gore has uttered on the subject of climate and is, at best, a deliberate act of obfuscation. Why? Because it turns out that there is an 800-year lag between temperature and carbon dioxide, unlike the sense conveyed by Mr. Gore's graph. You are probably wondering by now -- and if you are not, you should be -- which rises first, carbon dioxide or temperature. The answer? Temperature. In every case, the ice-core data shows that temperature rises precede rises in carbon dioxide by, on average, 800 years.

Heh, the lag issue - so predictable. This was actually expected and does nothing to suggest that CO2 does not force warming. We don't expect CO2 to just enter the system magically, lol.

In fact, the relationship is not "complicated." When the ocean-atmosphere system warms, the oceans discharge vast quantities of carbon dioxide in a process known as de-gassing. For this reason, warm and cold years show up on the Mauna Loa C02 measurements even in the short term. For instance, the post-Pinatubo-eruption year of 1993 shows the lowest C02 increase since measurements have been kept. When did the highest C02 increase take place? During the super El Niño year of 1998.

So he loves the egg but ignores the chicken. Of course warmer oceans tend to release CO2, that's as much basic physics as CO2 being a GHG.

CO2 is both chicken and egg.

What the alarmists now state is that past episodes of warming were not caused by C02 but amplified by it, which is debatable, for many reasons, but, more important, is a far cry from the version of events sold to the public by Mr. Gore.

He appears to be saying that CO2 was a feedback in the past, but says it's debatable that it resulted in warming, lol. Eejit.

CO2 is a GHG, of course is causes warming.

Meanwhile, the theory that carbon dioxide "drives" climate in any meaningful way is simply wrong and, again, evidence of a "flat-Earth" mentality. Carbon dioxide cannot absorb an unlimited amount of infrared radiation. Why not? Because it only absorbs heat along limited bandwidths, and is already absorbing just about everything it can.

That is BS. Where is he getting this tripe?

That is why plotted on a graph, C02's ability to capture heat follows a logarithmic curve. We are already very near the maximum absorption level. Further, the IPCC Fourth Assessment, like all the ones before it, is based on computer models that presume a positive feedback of atmospheric warming via increased water vapor.

BS. He's just making this stuff up. CO2 is nowhere near it's saturation level. He is right it's logarithmic, though. Hence, climate sensitivity is assessed in doublings of CO2 (2x CO2 = 3'C, 4x CO2 = 3'C, 8x CO2 = 3'C). Pity he has to spoil it.



Lots of room for absorption even at 4x CO2



Indeed, even at 10000x CO2 saturation wouldn't be achieved.

More here.

Further, the IPCC Fourth Assessment, like all the ones before it, is based on computer models that presume a positive feedback of atmospheric warming via increased water vapor.

Yes, it makes sense and has been confirmed. Water vapour is also a GHG and a strong feedback.

This mechanism has never been shown to exist. Indeed, increased temperature leads to increased evaporation of the oceans, which leads to increased cloud cover (one cooling effect) and increased precipitation (a bigger cooling effect). Within certain bounds, in other words, the ocean-atmosphere system has a very effective self-regulating tendency.

What! The effect of variations in water vapour on temps has never been shown, lol.

I would suggest he look up Andrew Dessler's work, that of Santer et al., (2007) and Soden et al (2001). For example, Dessler et al (2008):

Water-vapor climate feedback inferred from climate fluctuations, 2003–2008

A. E. Dessler
Z. Zhang
P. Yang

Department of Atmospheric Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA

Between 2003 and 2008, the global-average surface temperature of the Earth varied by 0.6°C. We analyze here the response of tropospheric water vapor to these variations. Height-resolved measurements of specific humidity (q) and relative humidity (RH) are obtained from NASA's satellite-borne Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS). Over most of the troposphere, q increased with increasing global-average surface temperature, although some regions showed the opposite response. RH increased in some regions and decreased in others, with the global average remaining nearly constant at most altitudes. The water-vapor feedback implied by these observations is strongly positive, with an average magnitude of λ q = 2.04 W/m2/K, similar to that simulated by climate models. The magnitude is similar to that obtained if the atmosphere maintained constant RH everywhere.

Dessler, A. E., Z. Zhang, and P. Yang (2008), Water-vapor climate feedback inferred from climate fluctuations, 2003–2008, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L20704, doi:10.1029/2008GL035333.

Observations confirm models.

Or perhaps Santer et al.

Identification of human-induced changes
in atmospheric moisture content
B. D. Santera,b, C. Mearsc, F. J. Wentzc, K. E. Taylora, P. J. Glecklera, T. M. L. Wigleyd, T. P. Barnette, J. S. Boylea,
W. Bru¨ ggemannf, N. P. Gillettg, S. A. Kleina, G. A. Meehld, T. Nozawah, D. W. Piercee, P. A. Stotti, W. M. Washingtond,
and M. F. Wehnerj
aProgram for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA 94550; cRemote Sensing Systems,
Santa Rosa, CA 95401; dNational Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO 80307; eScripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, CA 92037; fInstitut
fu¨ r Unternehmensforschung, Universita¨ t Hamburg, 20146 Hamburg, Germany; gClimatic Research Unit, School of Environmental Sciences, University of
East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, United Kingdom; hNational Institute for Environmental Studies, Tsukuba 305-8506, Japan; iHadley Centre for Climate
Prediction and Research, United Kingdom Meteorological Office, Exeter EX1 3PB, United Kingdom; and jLawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,
Berkeley, CA 94720
Edited by Inez Y. Fung, University of California, Berkeley, CA, and approved July 27, 2007 (received for review March 27, 2007)
Data from the satellite-based Special Sensor Microwave Imager
(SSM/I) show that the total atmospheric moisture content over
oceans has increased by 0.41 kg/m2 per decade since 1988. Results
from current climate models indicate that water vapor increases of
this magnitude cannot be explained by climate noise alone. In a
formal detection and attribution analysis using the pooled results
from 22 different climate models, the simulated ‘‘fingerprint’’
pattern of anthropogenically caused changes in water vapor is
identifiable with high statistical confidence in the SSM/I data.
Experiments in which forcing factors are varied individually suggest
that this fingerprint ‘‘match’’ is primarily due to humancaused
increases in greenhouse gases and not to solar forcing or
recovery from the eruption of Mount Pinatubo. Our findings
provide preliminary evidence of an emerging anthropogenic signal
in the moisture content of earth’s atmosphere.

That's all for now, he's too easy. Suppose I could carry on if you need me too...

[edit on 4-1-2009 by melatonin]

Damn, I can't edit as my post's over limit and I'll lose the tail-end...the second graph of CO2 saturation data should be this:



ABE:

and just to twist the knife into the heart of the notion that 'climate change' is some sort of new meme. From an article from 1959...

The theories that explain worldwide climate change are almost as varied as the weather.

www.sciam.com...

I suggest you read the article, it presents the basics - the ideas the research is built upon and is so well-established it is generally taken for granted these days. However, most deniers act as if it it doesn't even exist and attach themselves to any speculative contrary ideas.

Interesting to see the predictions it contains, and some think current science is 'alarmist', lol. Arrhenius didn't do too bad for an old crusty dead dude (2x CO2 = 5-6'C). Still a bit 'alarmist', though, compared to modern estimates of climate sensitivity (3'C; 2-4.5'C).

[edit on 4-1-2009 by melatonin]

If anything Al Gore has brought the idealism that we need to stop polluting our air! This is simple and items like "Acid Rain" can be resolved and have been by knowledge.

I guess this is somewhat like when Tipper Gore took on Ozzy Osborn, didnt have all the facts! I am appreciative of his interest in the worlds pollution problems as I would prefer someone spoke up before our kids and grand kids look to us in the futuer and tell us how irresponsible we we're.

Al Gore can say all he wants but the problem gets bigger every day. Just take a trip to Bejing where when it rains its like mud, or look at the satelite shots of SE Asia and see the brown cloud. Global warming maybe not. Pollution You betcha!

I dont think Gore needs to give anybody an apology. He stated that climate change is takng place and it is. Atmospheric models are still very far from reality and the situation is complicated. The rapid cooling of parts of the earth now show that the system is very volatile, such rapid cooling has never been monitored before by scientists. This recent turn of events is just as disturbing. We need to control our pollutants it is common sense to do so.
To negate from such issues will lead to catastrophic events in the future.

End of!

Kx

Originally posted by purplemer
I dont think Gore needs to give anybody an apology. He stated that climate change is takng place and it is. Atmospheric models are still very far from reality and the situation is complicated. The rapid cooling of parts of the earth now show that the system is very volatile, such rapid cooling has never been monitored before by scientists. This recent turn of events is just as disturbing. We need to control our pollutants it is common sense to do so.
To negate from such issues will lead to catastrophic events in the future.

End of!

Kx

Al Gore will give an apology only if it suits his own interests, but whether or not that happens is really pretty irrelevant. The main point, as you also state, is that we need to control our pollutants.

In this context I would argue that co2 is the least of our problems, as it is a naturally occurring substance & therefore easily assimilated into the earths system.

The problem I see with the current situation is that co2 completely dominates environmental issues because it is believed to be the driving force behind global warming.
Like you indicate, atmospheric systems are very complex & our current models are rough estimates at best. Likewise, local variations & extremes cannot be seen as evidence for global cooling or warming trends.

However, when the global warming trend (and I'm not denying that there has been one) suddenly drops off, and the global mean temperature drops dramatically in 2008, the basic thesis should be revised.

Does that mean he has to return his Noble Peace Prize?

It is the only thing that got him into the White House during the Bush Administration.

Originally posted by MrVertigo

Instead of attempting to slander his character & criticize his taste in films, as well as what you assume to be his personal beliefs, why don't you try pointing out where he is incorrect?

try

1st Co Chair of IPCC admits politics rules not science

i'd say parroting the line of a few extremists who happen to be part of the UN would be a mistake, sort of

UN Blowback: More Than 650 Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

never adressing contradicting viewpoints (even when they come from the holy church of GW itself) and data smacks of bias, imho

IPCC Scientists Caught Producing False Data To Push Global Warming

now you'll ask if there's another source, besides Prison Planet....

...and there is:

Warming Since 1990 Link To Data Collection

fraud is a mistake... at least if you get caught...

Source: Dailytech

from

www.abovetopsecret.com...


so, why not look around before jumping on the bandwagon next time? i mean confusion is understandable but vehemently defending the air tax just because they sold it to you as 'green' does not make too much sense, does it?

PS: as for the 'green' argument - see for yourselves:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by melatonin


First of all thank you for taking the time to back up your position with some hard info.

Obviously the article by Mr. Ambler is a op ed piece, & therefore he expresses his own irritation towards Mr. Gore & the rhetoric used by his side of the issue.

I personally don't care whether people call it Climate change or global warming, but there seems to be an increasing tendency towards the former expression as tendencies & trends become more unpredictable.

Ultimately though, this is all semantics and is not the main issue.

With regards to the "Hockey Stick" graph, Mr. Ambler is not attempting to deny that a warming trend has been observed, but he is criticizing the alarmist & biased way in which the data has been presented. As I understand it he is far from the only one & the matter is still being debated in scientific circles.

You speak at length about the "lag issue" as you call it & from what I gather your conclusion is that co2 is both "the chicken and the egg." I don't think anyone debates that this is true to some extent and I don't think anyone questions the fact that co2 functions as a greenhouse gas.
The question, however is whether or not co2 is the driving force behind climate change, which is what Mr. Gore stated.
This is highly questionable in my opinion, and I think the fact that co2 lags 800 years behind temperature is a solid indication of this.

Sure you can talk about feedback mechanisms & amplifying factors but to pin down c02 as the driving force behind global warming, requires so many leaps of logic & addandums, that it simply begins to loose plausibility.
Especially in light of the fact that global warming seems to be suspended, if not outright reversing - something that simply should not be happening according to Mr. Gores models.

When a scientific model fails it should be discarded in favor of one that actually works. Henrik Svensmarks model, which points to the sun as the deciding factor, not only fits perfectly with the historic charts but is also right on the money when it comes to the latest cooling trend.

Originally posted by Long Lance

Originally posted by MrVertigo

Instead of attempting to slander his character & criticize his taste in films, as well as what you assume to be his personal beliefs, why don't you try pointing out where he is incorrect?

...

so, why not look around before jumping on the bandwagon next time? i mean confusion is understandable but vehemently defending the air tax just because they sold it to you as 'green' does not make too much sense, does it?
...

I think you misunderstood me. I was referring to Melatonin & his critique of the author of the article in the OP, not Al Gore.

But thanks for the links

Originally posted by MrVertigo
reply to post by melatonin

 

First of all thank you for taking the time to back up your position with some hard info.

No problem. You asked nicely enough.

With regards to the "Hockey Stick" graph, Mr. Ambler is not attempting to deny that a warming trend has been observed, but he is criticizing the alarmist & biased way in which the data has been presented. As I understand it he is far from the only one & the matter is still being debated in scientific circles.

Heh, when a new study using a novel method appears, we would expect 'debate', but we are at the point of a dozen other studies replicating the original Mann '98 study. The fact that deniers still consistently focus on that 10 year old single study is quite telling.

You speak at length about the "lag issue" as you call it & from what I gather your conclusion is that co2 is both "the chicken and the egg." I don't think anyone debates that this is true to some extent and I don't think anyone questions the fact that co2 functions as a greenhouse gas.
The question, however is whether or not co2 is the driving force behind climate change, which is what Mr. Gore stated.

It is a major driving force of current climate change. I really don't care about Gore, he's an ex-politician. Again, the fact that deniers consistently focus on Gore is pretty telling. Who cares?

I care as much about Gore's interpretation of the science as I do for this musician dude. But Gore is at least closer to the mark. He has misinterpreted and overstated the data in the past but, again, who cares? I have more reason to think he's just being overkeen than this Ambler dude.

This is highly questionable in my opinion, and I think the fact that co2 lags 800 years behind temperature is a solid indication of this.

It means little about CO2 as a climate forcing. As I noted, we don't expect CO2 to just appear in the atmosphere from nowhere. Orbital variations probably trigger an initial warming, this leads to CO2 release which continues the warming.

It's another red-herring.

Sure you can talk about feedback mechanisms & amplifying factors but to pin down c02 as the driving force behind global warming, requires so many leaps of logic & addandums, that it simply begins to loose plausibility.

To be a driving force, it requires one single fact. CO2 is a GHG. By its very nature increasing it results in alterations of radiative balance. This is again, very well-established.

Radiative forcing - measured at Earth's surface - corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect

Radiative forcing - measured at Earth's surface - corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect
Rolf Philipona

Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos, World Radiation Center, Davos Dorf, Switzerland

Bruno Dürr

Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos, World Radiation Center, Davos Dorf, Switzerland

Christoph Marty

Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos, World Radiation Center, Davos Dorf, Switzerland

Atsumu Ohmura

Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zürich, Switzerland

Martin Wild

Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zürich, Switzerland

The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases and radiative forcing to increase as a result of human activities. Nevertheless, changes in radiative forcing related to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations could not be experimentally detected at Earth's surface so far. Here we show that atmospheric longwave downward radiation significantly increased (+5.2(2.2) Wm−2) partly due to increased cloud amount (+1.0(2.8) Wm−2) over eight years of measurements at eight radiation stations distributed over the central Alps. Model calculations show the cloud-free longwave flux increase (+4.2(1.9) Wm−2) to be in due proportion with temperature (+0.82(0.41) °C) and absolute humidity (+0.21(0.10) g m−3) increases, but three times larger than expected from anthropogenic greenhouse gases. However, after subtracting for two thirds of temperature and humidity rises, the increase of cloud-free longwave downward radiation (+1.8(0.8) Wm−2) remains statistically significant and demonstrates radiative forcing due to an enhanced greenhouse effect.

Citation: Philipona, R., B. Dürr, C. Marty, A. Ohmura, and M. Wild (2004), Radiative forcing - measured at Earth's surface - corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L03202, doi:10.1029/2003GL018765.

Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001) | doi:10.1038/35066553; Received 17 May 2000; Accepted 15 January 2001

Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997
John E. Harries, Helen E. Brindley, Pretty J. Sagoo and Richard J. Bantges

Space and Atmospheric Physics Group, Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College, London SW7 2BW, UK
Correspondence to: John E. Harries Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to J.E.H. (e-mail: Email: [email protected]).


Top of pageThe evolution of the Earth's climate has been extensively studied1, 2, and a strong link between increases in surface temperatures and greenhouse gases has been established3, 4. But this relationship is complicated by several feedback processes—most importantly the hydrological cycle—that are not well understood5, 6, 7. Changes in the Earth's greenhouse effect can be detected from variations in the spectrum of outgoing longwave radiation8, 9, 10, which is a measure of how the Earth cools to space and carries the imprint of the gases that are responsible for the greenhouse effect11, 12, 13. Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.

ABE: And another...

Anthropogenic greenhouse forcing and strong water vapor feedback increase temperature in Europe

Anthropogenic greenhouse forcing and strong water vapor feedback increase temperature in Europe
Rolf Philipona

Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos, World Radiation Center, Davos Dorf, Switzerland

Bruno Dürr

MeteoSwiss, Zürich, Switzerland

Atsumu Ohmura

Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zürich, Switzerland

Christian Ruckstuhl

Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zürich, Switzerland

Europe's temperature increases considerably faster than the northern hemisphere average. Detailed month-by-month analyses show temperature and humidity changes for individual months that are similar for all Europe, indicating large-scale weather patterns uniformly influencing temperature. However, superimposed to these changes a strong west-east gradient is observed for all months. The gradual temperature and humidity increases from west to east are not related to circulation but must be due to non-uniform water vapour feedback. Surface radiation measurements in central Europe manifest anthropogenic greenhouse forcing and strong water vapor feedback, enhancing the forcing and temperature rise by about a factor of three. Solar radiation decreases and changing cloud amounts show small net radiative effects. However, high correlation of increasing cloud-free longwave downward radiation with temperature (r = 0.99) and absolute humidity (r = 0.89), and high correlation between ERA-40 integrated water vapor and CRU surface temperature changes (r = 0.84), demonstrates greenhouse forcing with strong water vapor feedback.

Received 25 May 2005; accepted 17 August 2005; published 8 October 2005.

Citation: Philipona, R., B. Dürr, A. Ohmura, and C. Ruckstuhl (2005), Anthropogenic greenhouse forcing and strong water vapor feedback increase temperature in Europe, Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L19809, doi:10.1029/2005GL023624.

Especially in light of the fact that global warming seems to be suspended, if not outright reversing - something that simply should not be happening according to Mr. Gores models.

Why not?

Mr Gore also has no models. He's just an attention-whore ex-politico.

When a scientific model fails it should be discarded in favor of one that actually works. Henrik Svensmarks model, which points to the sun as the deciding factor, not only fits perfectly with the historic charts but is also right on the money when it comes to the latest cooling trend.

Svensmark's 'model' is very, very speculative, and even if the link between cosmic rays and clouds is robust (he has a few steps to go yet), it does not fit the evidence at all. Cosmic rays have been pretty stable for decades. So unless they effect climate by having no real trend (lol), I can't see how it's important over this period of climate change.

This is what I mean about people embracing wild speculation when we have good evidence already - wishful-thinking doesn't help.

[edit on 5-1-2009 by melatonin]

I think Al Gore is about as likely to apologize as Bill Ayers was with regard to his past terrorist activities. IMO people tend to attack the ex-VP because he puts a face on the "global warming" movement. A celebrity endorsement, if you will...

I have no doubt he has given quite a shot in the arm to the environmental movement, but has also sparked a backlash. The thing is, people who used to call themselves environmentalists, like myself, no longer do so because of Al Gore and his movement. There is a fine line between creating awareness and creating a backlash (as did Gore's wife's attack on heavy metal and other music genres that tend to use profane language - that just made me want to crank up the Ozzy!). It's quite possible that's why "climate change" is used more frequently than "global warming".

Of course, requiring that certain music albums be labeled according to content has had no where near the devastating economic impact that will occur in the name of "stopping" global warming (as if we humans actually had the power to manipulate the climate in such a way). Even if Gore was to apologize, the genie's already been let out of the bottle.