Mr. Gore: Apology Accepted

[elder999]

Seen here, on Huffington Post :lol:

The question for me is: who the heck is Harold Ambler?
And what makes Ambler such an authority on climate science to so confidently make the a claim as bold as global warming being a lie? By the looks of his various bios scattered around the internet it appears that Ambler's background in the area of climate science is non-existent, he is the author of an upcoming book on a rowing team at Brown University and a musician.

and;

Harold Ambler reached out to me about posting a critical piece on Al Gore and the environment. We are always open to posts that present opinions contrary to HuffPost's editorial view -- and have welcomed many conservative voices, such as David Frum, Tony Blankley, Michael Smerconish, Bob Barr, Joe Scarborough, Jim Talent, etc., to the site. We have featured also countless posts from the leading lights of the Green movement, including Robert Redford, Laurie David, Carl Pope, Van Jones, David Roberts, and many others -- and I myself have written extensively about the global warming crisis, and have been highly critical of those who refuse to acknowledge the overwhelming scientific evidence.

:lfao:

 

[elder999]

As for that "point by point refutation":

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

Climate is the averages of the temperatures, humidity, rainfall, atmospheric particle count and numerous other meteorological factors in a given region over long periods of time, as opposed to the term weather, which refers to , well, today’s conditions. It is, by definition, an average-a set of expectations, whereas “weather,” is what you get today. These averages and expectations have changed in the past, and are changing now. The issue is what factors the current set of changes is due to, and where they will progress to.

2. snip!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.

This is a fact commonly misconstrued by the “anti-global warming” camp. Yes, in the past, CO2 increases were preceded by 800 years or so by temperature increases, but this is misleading. The fact is that the CO2 rise then precedes another 4200 years or so of warming, for a total of 5,00 years of warming. The way it works is explained (in much better “make it so mom the shrink can understand” talk than I can offer :lol: ) here :

From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable sequence of events at a termination goes something like this. Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. This leads to even further CO2 release. So CO2 during ice ages should be thought of as a "feedback", much like the feedback that results from putting a microphone too near to a loudspeaker.

So, the common misconception is that you can only have one or the other, but the fact is that you can have both-heating causes CO2, which causes more heating , AND more CO2 (like mankind has, unquestionably added) causes more heating.

 

[Sukerkin]

I'd not heard that before, Elder. Thank you for adding to the sum of knowledge of at least this particular middle-aged Englishman.

 

[Flying Crane]

The average cow eats 100lbs of feed and drinks 40 gallons of water a day. That is 90,000 lbs of food a DAY and 36,00 gallons of water a DAY for the average dairy farm in California.

I'd check your facts on these numbers. I grew up in Wisconsin and spent a bit of time on dairy farms since my uncle ran one and I had friends in school who grew up on them. At times I was out there and helped with the chores and such. I don't recall the cattle eating anything like 100 pounds of feed and drinking 40 gallons of water per day. That just doesn't jive with my memory.

 

[Sukerkin]

I'd concur with the numbers game query there, FC. My first job as a youngster was working on a mixed farm and I certainly don't recall such large 'inputs' into the cow herd.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

I'd check your facts on these numbers. I grew up in Wisconsin and spent a bit of time on dairy farms since my uncle ran one and I had friends in school who grew up on them. At times I was out there and helped with the chores and such. I don't recall the cattle eating anything like 100 pounds of feed and drinking 40 gallons of water per day. That just doesn't jive with my memory.

Similarly, I used to live on a small cattle ranch, with a herd of about 20 cows. We fed them 100lbs of feed total every two days, and they remained fat, dumb, and healthy. Now, they weren't dairy cows, and this is personal experience only, but still, each cow didn't eat but 5lbs, give or take. 100lbs a day for one cow seems...excessive, unless that's literally ALL they eat. Most of our herd's sustenance came from grazing.

*chews his straw of hay and watches a tumbleweed*

P.S. Oh, why are we talking about cow feed in a thread about Al Gore's reliability? Better scan the thread again.

 

[elder999]

Another thing that seems to upset the global-warming deniers is how clobal warming can cause colder weather. Note that I said "colder weather." Remember, "climate" is the average, "weather" is today. Anyway, the best explanation (in make it so mom the shrink can understand speak) comes not from the world of meteorology, or climatology, but from the world of electronics.

When I was a little boy in New York, sometimes dad would tune up the shortwave, and we’d listen to the BBC, or French jazz programs, and sometimes the Moscow symphony orchestra. Once, I asked him why we couldn’t see British or French TV, to which he replied, I dunno.

(Of course he didn’t know; he was an Episcopal priest, a psychologist and a history professor. He was a very bright guy, about the most educated person you could meet, but he didn’t know diddly about how his car ran, let alone electronics. :lfao

Well, I wanted to know, and later on, I found out:the reason why we can receive radio signals from so far away, and not TV signals, is the ionosphere, that "crust" of particles that holds the rest of our atmosphere in place, so to speak-the outer layer.. Get this though: the reason that a radio signal travels further than a TV signal is because it’s much weaker than a TV signal.

See, the strong TV signal will penetrate the ionosphere from just about any angle, so TV can only be received from line of sight. You might get TV signals from Earth on the Moon or on Mars, but you can’t get them (through air) from Moscow in New York, because they go out and just keep going. Radio, though, is deflected back to earth because it is too weak to penetrate the ionosphere-so radio signals from Moscow or London bounce off, and are received in New York, or anywhere else.....

Now, think of the Sun as a transmitter, and its light as the powerful TV signal, and its heat as a weaker radio signal. Light will penetrate our ionosphere from just about any angle, with slight refraction at more northern and southern latitudes. Heat is the weak radio signal, and is deflected by the ionosphere at angles, like the tilt of the earth towards the sun at "winter"

As we continue to put more greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, the ionosphere is strengthened, as are its effects: more heat is deflected at sharp angles like winter. What heat does get through the rest of the time is trapped by the stronger ionosphere-deflected back to earth. Between these two extremes is a gradual change in the amount of heat allowed past the ionosphere, and because cold air is heavier than warm air, warmth is blocked from moving into colder areas, and the coldest air will sit at ground level

The same phenomena occur during winter in temperate regions, when a high-pressure system increases rigidity at, and just below, the ionosphere so that it deflects more heat-carrying rays; thus on bright sunny days in January the temperature is colder than it is during overcast low-pressure weather and why no one ever gets a suntan or sunburn in the dead of winter (unless they go skiing, and get a reflection tan). When the high pressure dissipates, more heat is allowed to enter the atmosphere. High-pressure systems do not greatly affect heat entering the atmosphere during the summer since the rays carrying heat mainly hit the ionosphere head on.

Higher average temperatures will increase evaporation, making a more-humid atmosphere year round, and that added moisture is available for snowstorms; thus heavier snowfall is definitely caused by global warming just as are colder short-term winter temperatures. The heavier air resulting from the higher moisture content of the atmosphere also makes wind storms more destructive.

That is how global warming contributes to colder winter temperatures and heavier snowfall, for now: "weather," remember? :lfao:

 

[Makalakumu]

The problem with this analogy is that it implies that the sun's "light" bounces off the earth and turns into "heat". While this is correct depending the medium the "light" strikes, it ignores the fact that an incredible amount of heat (infrared) is bombarding the earth at every moment. If it can get it, it can get out, and it does get out. The earth is being barraged by a full spectrum of radiation from radio to gamma rays. Our eyes are evolutionarily biased towards the "visible" portion of this spectrum.

Infrared radiation is still too powerful to be deflected by layers in the atmosphere. It passes right through unless it hits a molecule that will scatter it in a random direction from either its entry or exit path. Accordingly, areas with higher concentrations of greenhouse gas both geographically and according to altitude show a higher increase in temperature. This has been observed of many major cities and over other objects that emit large amounts of greenhouse gas.

Kilauea, for instance, produces more greenhouse gas then any city on earth. The temperature high about the volcano is markedly different then the temperature surrounding it.

That said, I think the biggest area of research that still needs to be done is the determination of the amounts of greenhouse gasses emitted from all sources. Humans, volcanoes, oceans, etc, all sources. When those numbers are clearly differentiated, then the debate is over. Until then, we get to argue!

Global warming due to greenhouse gas is factual. The human portion of greenhouse gas emission is far from settled.

 

[elder999]

The problem with this analogy is that it implies that the sun's "light" bounces off the earth and turns into "heat". While this is correct depending the medium the "light" strikes, it ignores the fact that an incredible amount of heat (infrared) is bombarding the earth at every moment. snip!.

TMI for "mom the shrink," dude.:lfao:

 

[Makalakumu]

TMI for "mom the shrink," dude.:lfao:

Tru dat.

How can expect to have this as a national debate when the scientific particulars are so far out of an under educated populaces reach?

 

[Ramirez]

Another thing that seems to upset the global-warming deniers is how clobal warming can cause colder weather. Note that I said "colder weather." Remember, "climate" is the average, "weather" is today. :lfao:

I made that point on another board, that any small sample will be volatile (weather) while a larger sample will show statistical trends (climate) ,and pointing out I have a degree in statistics, I was promptly told by the head denier that it was BS....although my point had less to do with climate and more to do with statistics.

Right now the current cold snap is being uses as "proof" that climate change is not happening...oddly the heat waves in the summer are never cited for proof of the opposite.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

What bothers me about the whole subject (and this is evidenced by some posts on this thread) is how political it's gotten.

From Jason's unabridged dictionary:

political decision: any decision based on the source of an idea rather than the merits of the idea itself.

Lots of otherwise bright folks are flat not looking at the evidence and then forming an intelligent opinion. They are, instead, looking at what their favorite talking head thinks and then dumping hate on everyone who disagrees.

I don't know the real truth here. It' likely nobody does. And since the world could freaking end if we don't figure it out, wouldn't it be nice if we could approach the question with open minds?

Argh

 

[elder999]

I don't know the real truth here. It' likely nobody does. And since the world could freaking end if we don't figure it out, wouldn't it be nice if we could approach the question with open minds?

Argh

THe real truth is that the earth is getting warmer. Period. :lol:

Another truth is that conditions are such that the earth would be getting warmer: the sun is a little hotter, our orbit around it is somewhat different, the precessional wobble of the earth is swinging a bit.

Another truth is that we've added enough greenhouse gas to the atmosphere to say that it hasn't had as high a concentration of CO2 in about half a million years, and the earth was much, much warmer then.

Another truth is that the warming condition is pernicious and exponential: melting arctic ice and diminshed ice cover leads to more warming, because the reflective properties of the ice kept light from the sun from being absorbed by water as heat. More heat means faster melting-faster melting means more heat.

Something I posted elsewhere: 'global warming" isn't a full-on theory, in that it's not testable. We can neither prove nor disprove it by altering conditions, as we're not really capable of altering conditions. We could stop emitting CO2 today, and it wouldn't make any difference, trendwise, for quite some time.

We really can't alter anything else: can't add salt to the ocean, can't keep the sun from the poles, can't control el Nino or la Nina. And there are far, far too many factors anyway. Best we can do-the thing that makes it a "theory" -is experiment with computer generated models, and make some predictions based upon them.

In the end, though, you needn't worry. Neither the world, or the human race are likely to come to end because of this. Millions of people who aren't even born yet will see an adverse affect on their lives-some already have, but not many. We're also seeing, as I posted earlier, some positive effects-but these are temporary, at best. Of course, "temporary" on this scale could mean the rest of my life, so.....:lfao:

In the end, we'll all get to see, in the years to come, just how right or wrong the science actually is.