Speaking in Davos, at the World Economic Forum, Al Gore is quoted saying, ‘Climate change ‘significantly worse’ than feared.’
Gore claims, “the climate crisis is significantly worse and unfolding more rapidly than those on the pessimistic side of the IPCC projections had warned us.” Apparently there are new forecasts that the North Pole ice caps “could” disappear during summer within 5 years. We can hold you to that one Al.
Mmmm! Since 1990, the IPCC has lowered both it’s temperature and sea level rise forecasts, in 1995, 2001 and 2007. In fact, the IPCC seems to have abandoned decadal sea level forecasts in AR4 and gone for an unverifiable 90-year projection/prediction.
If any readers know where Al gets his worsening ‘climate crisis’ information from, let us know.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
If Lord Monckton is right, the IPCC has actually doctoring the reports, as posted by John Ray today on Greenie watch.
As Nigel Calder said in the Swindle documentary, we are being comphrensively lied to.
And there is one more interesting consequence of increased snowfall at the Antarctic, predicted by the AGW hypothesis, no less.
So if warming causes more evaporation, and hence more snow deposition at the pole, which also experiences more rapid melting ( how is another matter since a global average of 3Kelvin puts Antarctica from 60 below freezing to 57 below, and that is still frozen), then logically the status quo is not changed, so sea levels cannot rise as a consequence.
Do these people actually think through their prophesies? Probably not, but it does guarantee next years academic funding I suppose. It’s called maintaining job security.
And while I am on the subject, in Perth there is a civil movement opposed to the beach side development of South Beach, south of Fremantle, with the WA State government as the driving force for development.
If Al Gore is right, then er, what is this pro-AGW State Government doing developing beachside land – has the precautionary principle been jettisoned? Is the leftwing CFMEU (tbuilding trade union) behind this development? Is not the WA state government somewhat inconsistent?
And are we also being comrehensively lied to in this case?
http://www.carbonequity.info/index.html
here is some alarmist meat for the vultures to pick over
“So if warming causes more evaporation, and hence more snow deposition at the pole, which also experiences more rapid melting ( how is another matter since a global average of 3Kelvin puts Antarctica from 60 below freezing to 57 below, and that is still frozen), then logically the status quo is not changed, so sea levels cannot rise as a consequence.
Do these people actually think through their prophesies? Probably not, but it does guarantee next years academic funding I suppose. It’s called maintaining job security.”
Louis, I think these statements sum you up nicely (misinformed, little bit neurotic and somewhat hypocritical) and makes me happy that you are camping and digging up rocks instead of studying hydrology cycles and ice melt.
Under the new blog standards Louis you are being defamatory and should be deleted.
Doctoring of reports? Pretty severe stuff.
What exactly are the lies precisely and exactly – no Louis hand waving and waffle please – which pages of the IPCC report. What sea level rise is expected in the next few years by the IPCC.
What blog standards, Luke? What about the topic?
“More Global Gore-ing: Al’s Virtual World”
Thanks for the carbon claptrap link Anthony.
Why would any thinking person believe a word Al Gore says? His movie AIT looks increasingly like science fiction. But, hey, it pays well.
Anthony, you have not countered my statements, merely vilified me. And of course Luke doesn’t know in the first place.
So how about answering the message instead of shooting the messenger?
Or am I asking too much.
Yes yes yes Louis – all very interesting and a nice attempt at diversion – now back to substantiating your defamation or are you simply full of it?
Luke,
what defamation?
Luke,
The IPCC has been caught a number of times for their mistakes.Some so suspicious as Monkton reported.That many skeptics have no choice but to consider them negatively.
Luke and SJT
In general you contribute damn all to this blog. Your constant ad hominem arguments are boring and tiresome. How about you go on sabbatical and do an AR4 reading to discover the hidden meaning. You need to actually quote chapter and verse, and testament would be good. Thumping your AR4 is really not good enough.
DHMO – I have quoted chapter and verse over the years – so don’t lecture me matey. Hypocritically you may notice all people like youself do is scream “there is no evidence”. Now with a major review like the AR4 on the table and a massive literature – that is an insult to anyone with intelligence. Your problem is you disagree – bad luck – either participate and debate or buzz off. Louis has said there are lies being told – I have asked him to substantiate. He NEVER does. Vague slurs are simply the order of the day.
Quoting someone like Monckton as an authoritative rebuttal is laughable.
Let’s get off the celebrities and cult personalities and onto some facts for a change.
Luke:
“Quoting someone like Monckton as an authoritative rebuttal is laughable.
Let’s get off the celebrities and cult personalities and onto some facts for a change.”
LOL
It is obvious that you have the IPCC disease.
Monkton is simply one of many intelligent people who have posted IN DETAIL errors of the IPCC reports.The latest Monkton report showed the big error and that the IPCC responded to …… (lol) the viscounts by admitting the error.
Your ad homenium only makes you look dumb.
Well gee Sundown your contributions here have been utterly breathtaking. Quoting political celebrities is not evidence in the slightest. Your attempt to dig in only empahsises your denialism.
Isn’t the point of the post Gore’s claims that climate change has “accelerated” in recent years etc etc? Well, that is just nonsense – globally temperatures have been declining since 2005 and are now no higher than in 2000 or 2001.
Gore tends to look, and sound, like a tele-evangelist; exactly the same dark suits, spaniel eyes and clutching hand gestures.
“AR4 reading to discover the hidden meaning”
You mean like “The Davinci Code?”
I like hidden meanings, please do carry on.
“Well gee Sundown your contributions here have been utterly breathtaking. Quoting political celebrities is not evidence in the slightest. Your attempt to dig in only empahsises your denialism.”
LOL,
You do not even have a clue what Monkton said.You just trash him out of sheer ignorance.Your narrow minded bias is noted.
Besides I have not quoted the Viscount.I merely alluded that the Viscount found and reported errors of the IPCC.Do you have any idea what the error was? The IPCC admitted to it only after the Viscount TOLD them about it.
Yup it was a “political celebrity” who spotted the error.Not YOU or,gavin,james hansen and other famous AGW’s.They never seem to notice the glaring and suspicious error.
You need to stop making an ass of yourself.
Keep on digging SunDown. Deeper and deeper. Monkton – really…. as if we haven’t heard far enough to make a decision. You’ve only just turned up here sunshine so don’t think you’re a font of wisdom or vanguard for the faithful.
Do you actually know anything yourself SunDown or do you just like parroting your latest blog read from another wing nut denialist.
Luke
I have never seen you offer evidence. We need sound grounds that CO2 is in fact causing global warming. A myriad of bad things are connected to it evidence is needed for the connection. I have read much about this and find a lot of doubt you seem to have no doubt. You just thump your bible and give no reasonable discussion.
“Luke
I have never seen you offer evidence.”
So he has never offered any? Argument from ignorance. Luke has spent many hours researching evidence and presenting it. The usual response is ridicule or complete silence.
“We need sound grounds that CO2 is in fact causing global warming. ”
Read the IPCC report. If you want more science, the report refers to all the papers it is based on. If you want more detail, here is a free online textbook.
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateBook.html
If you are really nice, you might ask Luke a specific question and he might feel like looking it up for you. I don’t know about your chances, given the **** he’s had to cop here.
DHMO – I invite you to peruse the blog archives for multi-point evidence from myself.
As for doubt you must have missed some comments I have made very recently in threads below. The interesting thing about you guys is how assumptive you are on what myself, SJT and Ender may think.
This thread is particularly disingenuous as it deliberately trys to blur the IPCC and Al Gore together. The IPCC has made a detailed and reasoned view of the sea level rise. Al Gore’s unfortunate portrayal of a sea level rise at an unspecified time in the future is a single commentators point of view and not what the IPCC says. Given decadal variability in the sea level story decadal forecasts aren’t helpful. The bit that was missed in the 4AR was the raft of papers (tabled by myelf here in the archives that said the IPCC has not properly considered the mechanics of ice sheet disintegration).
The current sea level rise is running on the high level of the intial predictions. Do I think sea level rise is an “imminent” worry. No ! Not in the short term, but the mechanics of ice sheet breakup and decadal influences need a lot more study. Still no room for total complacency.
To be honest Luke; I am still coming to terms with Enders concept of what constitutes a tonne of feathers, not wishing to be down on his concept you dont want to weigh in do you?
“If you want more detail, here is a free online textbook.
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateBook.html“
Instead of just flinging out a reference to an unfinished manuscript, can’t you at least extract the salient points to support your position?.
Here’s a good excerpt (pg. 133):
“. . . one has already depleted infrared of those frequencies that are most strongly absorbed by CO2 so when adding CO2 one is adding “new absorbtion” in spectral regions where the absorption is relatively weak. Hence, it takes a large amount of the gas to have much radiative effect.”
Tell us what that means SJT!
He is talking about the logarithmic response of adding more CO2 to the atmosphere. Since it looks like are going to be doubling the CO2 concentration, that is a large amount of gas being added that is going to have ‘much’ radiative effect.
“Keep on digging SunDown. Deeper and deeper. Monkton – really…. as if we haven’t heard far enough to make a decision. You’ve only just turned up here sunshine so don’t think you’re a font of wisdom or vanguard for the faithful.
Do you actually know anything yourself SunDown or do you just like parroting your latest blog read from another wing nut denialist.”
Your ignorance is noted.
You have no idea what Monkton did and that the IPCC accepted his suggested corrections.You apparently did not know that The Viscount Monkton is one of the IPCC reviewers.Like I said you are an ignorant man.
I have come to expect such ignorant babble from people like you Luke.I have been on many forums and dealt with some ignorant people.But you are among the worst I have ever come across.
You have no idea what MY political viewpoint is either.You have no idea what MY viewpoint is on the topic Climate Change either.
Why continue to make a fool of yourself so openly to the world?
“He is talking about the logarithmic response of adding more CO2 to the atmosphere. Since it looks like are going to be doubling the CO2 concentration, that is a large amount of gas being added that is going to have ‘much’ radiative effect.”
LOL,
It is still a miniscule trace atmospheric gas.
The plants will grow better.We will breathe just as easily as before and the climate barely warms.
“”He is talking about the logarithmic response of adding more CO2 to the atmosphere. Since it looks like are going to be doubling the CO2 concentration, that is a large amount of gas being added that is going to have ‘much’ radiative effect.”
LOL,
It is still a miniscule trace atmospheric gas.”
Fine, ignore the scientific evidence. What’s the world coming to.
Listen Sundown – all manner of goofballs might e IPCC reviewers. Doesn’t mean anything they say is listened to. You just have to ask for the draft. Monky is a try-on merchant not a scientist.
As for the logarithm stuff – it’s utterly incredible that goobers like to parade this info-fact around like the physicists don’t know about it. For heavens sake grow up.
A minor trace gas – well the old teensy weensy argument – haven’t had that for a few eeks now -what stupidity. Botulism and plutonium specks are teensy weensy too and they can kill you stone dead. How can this be – they’re teensy weensy ?? It’s simply a physics calculation mate. Don’t bung on the nonsense.
Plants may or may not grow better. CO2 isn’t Jack’s beanstalk if water is limiting. Check your MWP world? ! See how well the real world FACE experiments have done (if you know what FACE even is).