Leading climate scientist admits he was wrong - also says Al Gore was wrong

He says he was , and I QUOTE: "MISTAKEN". That = WRONG everywhere in the sentient world....

 

Ok Bowerbird. How many aspects of this dead theory must be admitted to be wrong before you admit the entire thing was wrong? Like the coming ice age scare of the 70's?
Just give me a round figure. Don't duck me like you always do.

 

Which means we need not be alarmed and destroy our economy because of a little warming. It's happened before and never did anything catastrophic. At least not in the Eocene.

 

Accurate data is not the same as moved thermometers and parsed alarmist verbage and adjusted statistics.

 

Yaaaaawwwwwwnnnnnn...same old bullcrap.

I AM a fan of LONGER GROWING SEASONS, a MUCH LARGER TRACT OF ARABLE LAND in Scandinavia, Canada, GReenland and Russia...etal.

It's been FAR WARMER FAR FASTER, since humans were here,and we're still here. Research how the Great Lakes were formed...guess what..HUMANS WERE HERE THEN, TOO?

Please show us where such massive, rapid warming as that is taking place, IOW, where melting ice is forming NEW GReat Lakes...I won't hold my breath...

(BTW, I hate to "pop your bubble", but "Day After Tomorrow" was nothing but a complete bullcrap, Hollywood movie...sorry.)

 

Thanks for confirming why I put you on my ignore list. Nothing but alarmist crap. I had to look just this once. You never dissapoint. Runaway effect on human life indeed. You are exactly what the scientist quoted in the OP was apologising for. I hope you have an aneurism over this chimera. One less liberal kool aid drinker would do the world some good.

 

False.

False.

You're oh-for-two.

 

Don't look now, but that water you envision getting from power plants doesn't come from thin air. You have to expend energy to make the hydrogen to use in engines. This is one of those problems people like you never address. It's a locked loop you are trying to get energy from. It's the perpetual motion machine all over again.
Answer three questions.

1. Where are you getting the energy to split water into Oxygen and Hydrogen.
2. What do you think they will do with the water after it's recombined in your energy plant?
2b. Don't you think it would be better to just put it back through the cycle?
3. How is this going to be better than just using the power produced by the source that you use to split water into Hydrogen and Oxygen?

No real scientist would ever propose what you just did. And every engineer in the world worth his salt would laugh in your face. Scientist my ass.

 

I'd say that qualifies as nothing more than incoherent slogans and faulty logic.

 

I guess when you get past 90, you don't keep up with the literature. Twelve years isn't a reasonable time, given the variability in the climate system and the known (measured) signal-to-noise ratio in global temperatures. The actual minimum time is seventeen years:

"Because of the pronounced effect of interannual noise on decadal trends, a multi-model ensemble of anthropogenically-forced simulations displays many 10-year periods with little warming. A single decade of observational TLT data is therefore inadequate for identifying a slowly evolving anthropogenic warming signal. Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature." -- Santer et. al. 2011.

 

17 years is as arbitrary as 12. Don't get all full of yourself. They were saying 15 before. and when it gets to 15 they will raise it to 20. And you will still be defending this scare tactic to control peoples lives.

 

Right-wingers can't read.

 

It's not arbitrary at all, as you would have discovered if you had actually read the cited paper, which you obviously have not.

Who said? In what journal? Citation, please: author, journal, article, date. Or say ... you're not just making stuff up, are you?

 

Yeah, ALWAYS, except for the PETM (Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maxium), which caused a mass extinction.

And then there was the "Great Dying", the end-Permian mass extinction, which wiped out 90% of all life on the planet and was triggered by a massive CO2 release from the Siberian Traps.

But except for those, yeah, then I guess you're right. Nothing to worry about here, except for that 90% of life wiped out stuff.

 

CO2 and temperature are in a positive feedback loop. An increase in one will cause an increase in the other. During the Ice Ages, all it took was a little bit of global warming from orbital forcing to set that feedback loop into motion, causing a LOT MORE global warming, and an end to the ice age.

But now we've put our shoe into the works, and dumped 1.2 gigatons of CO2 into the air from fossil sources, causing the warming ourselves. In a natural (=slow) climate change, a heating of the oceans would cause more CO2 to be released, causing more heating, causing more CO2 to be released. But we're releasing so much CO2 ourselves that the partial pressure of CO2 above the oceans is increasing so fast that the oceans are still in CO2-absorbing mode. And they will continue to absorb more CO2 until the mid to late 21st century.

But at some point, the oceans too will become saturated, and the temperature rise will be large enough that the oceans will begin to give back some of the CO2 that we emitted and that they have already absorbed. If we don't have our fossil carbon emissions under control by then, we're all in deep serious trouble.

 

Exactly 100% wrong.

I can't predict where a roulette ball will fall on the next spin, at all. But I can predict, with great confidence, that over the long haul, the house will win.

Long-term predictions of averages are much, much easier to make than short-term predictions of noisy variables. Every single time.

 

Yeah, yeah....heard it all before, with the climate messiah Al.

 

Yeah sure they are. Please show be the chemical test that PROVES IT.

While you're at it, please take note of the fact that the current "HUGE LEVEL" of CO2 in our atmosphere is LESS THAN 400 PARTS PER MILLION. That's LESS THAN .000400. And the human component of THAT miniscule number is LESS THAN 6% of it.

So, please explain the effects of LESS THAN 6% of LESS THAN .000400 atmospheric concetration ov CO2...on anything.

Answers untilizing ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC METHOD, with a CONTROL, and VERIFIABLE, REPEATABLE, REAL WORLD RESULTS, ONLY, will be accepted.
"Computer models" , utilizing arbitrary parameters,and "manipluated data", are not this. AS a matter of fact, NO COMPUTER MODELS are chemical proof.
I'll wait here....meanwhile , you have NO IDEA what caused the warming that ended the last Great ICe Age...NO ONE DOES, that's honest, anyway...

 

You really think that just because it's a small % of the overall atmospheric make up that it doesn't matter?

Here you go. I fill a bucket until it's 99% full. I walk away. You then walk up to it and fill it until it overflows. According to your idiotic logic it's still my fault that it overflowed.

 

Uh...yeah, that's what I KNOW. A miniscule amount of CO2 such as that has virtually NO thermal retention properties, as ANY CHEMIST can tell you, and show you.

It just make the plants happier, and more oxygen for all of us.

As far as your asinine attempt at logic, please explain how you filling the bucket to 99% compares to a TOTAL ATMOSPHERIC CARBON FOOTPRINT OF .000382 of which the human part is .00002292.

Math...one of the Great Mysteries to the Left, along with ACTUAL Science.

My BS in Chemistry is from UMR-University of Missouri at Rolla; it's got a fancier name now.

How about yours?

 

It's called an analogy. Well done, welcome to my IL.

 

NO, it's called utter nonsense....

 

wow you "claim" to have BS in chenistry and then demonstrate an absolute lack of critical thinking...you should ask for a return of your tuition...

 

I put a drop of black ink in a glass of water. The ink only represents 400 ppm of the mix, yet the water turns black and blocks visible light.

So, a tiny trace of something in a medium still blocks all the light in a certain spectrum.

In the same way the ink blocks visible light, a trace of CO2 totally blocks radiation in a certain band of the infrared spectrum. Oddly, denialists will swear it can't happen with the CO2, even if they can see it happen with the ink. Go fig.

And no, I can't dumb that analogy down any further for you. (Dumbing things down to denialist levels is always very difficult, and sometimes, you just can't make things that dumb.)

Go get your own ink and do it.

Or go fill your own chamber with various concentrations of CO2 and shine IR light of different frequencies through it.

It's all repeatable. It's only a matter of whether you'll continue to deny basic repeatable science solely because your political cult has ordered you to shut your brain off.

Seriously, you're babbling about thermal retention? That made me laugh, it was so dumb. Please, before you embarrass yourself and UMR further, educate yourself on the basics. You guys manage to get pretty much everything totally wrong -- math, physics, chemistry, statistic, logic, history, ethics -- everything. That's what impresses me somewhat about denialists, the way they manage to be belligerently stupid and unethical across a wide array of disciplines. In terms of stupidity and moral bankruptcy, they're like renaissance men.

 

please show us where all this arable land is in Canada, Scandinavia, Greenland and Russia are and how many centuries it will take to covert bottomless muskeg into agricultural land or how bedrock scrubbed bare by ice-age glaciation will suddenly become productive farmland ....I won't hold my breath...arable land gained due to CC will in no way come close to replacing what is lost....

some of the most simplistic thinking demonstrated is done by deniers who see a bit of colour on a map and assume it's all hospitable agricultural land...