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

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Mac-7, Apr 29, 2012.

  1. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Scientists don't use the word "proof" because we always have room for new data. But this stuff is as textbook as it gets.

    1. Absorption of CO2 in water and temperature dependence thereof (Henry's Law): Weiss 1974; Robert 1990; Vaitz et. al. 2004.
    2. Absorption of infrared by CO2 in the air (Beer-Lambert Law): Niro et. al. 2004; Predoi-Cross et. al. 2007; Toth et. al. 2008.

    So you're saying that if you put one drop of India Ink into a liter of pure water -- 50 ppm -- the water won't change color?? Because according to you, 50 ppm is just way too small to do anything when it comes to photon absorption? Are you willing to put that absurd idea to the test? Or will you just quietly concede that you're full of it?

    False. For ten thousand years prior to the Industrial Revolution, CO2 was stable in the air at 270 to 280 ppmv. Since the invention of the steam engine and the beginning of coal burning for industry, CO2 has risen to 390 ppmv, a 40% increase. That 110 ppmv increase is entirely on the human ledger.

    I'd be happy to, but first let's correct (again) your false statement on the amount of CO2 in the air that's anthropogenic. The current CO2 level is 390 ppmv, up from the pre-industrial level of 280 or so. The amount that this affects absorption of outgoing infrared is measurable, and the change from our contribution of 110 ppmv of CO2 amounts to 1.8 Watts per square meter (Myhre et. al. 1998). For every square meter of the Earth's surface. Since the Earth's surface is 510,072,000 km², that's over 900 terawatts that our CO2 is adding to the Earth's energy budget continuously. By comparison, all human energy use is about 15 terawatts. Some of this is offset by anthropogenic aerosols. Some is offset by negative feedbacks in the climate system. But some is enhanced by positive feedbacks in the climate system, and then there are other manmade greenhouse gases to consider too.

    So you can do an experiment, but in your little world you cannot make any computation based on the result of that experiment? Balderdash. Every scientific law is a model. If you don't accept models, you don't accept science. Period. (But hey, you're a right-winger, so no surprise there ...)

    Actually, Imbrie and Imbrie worked that out decades ago, but their work was based on the Law of Gravity and the Inverse Square law. And I suppose you don't accept the Law of Gravity either, since that's a model. And those predictions of where the planets are supposed to be ten years from now? Bah humbug! It's all done with computers, so Grokmaster says nonsense!!

    And those alleged Moon landings? All done with computers and models! Grokmaster says NO!

    Just how far down that rabbit hole are you willing to go? Something tells me the Mad Hatter will find his Tea Party at the other end, where science and rationality are banished from thought. Off with their heads!
     
  2. FrankCapua

    FrankCapua Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2004
    Messages:
    3,906
    Likes Received:
    441
    Trophy Points:
    83
    What were the catastrophic events of the warming that allowed the Vikings to farm on Greenland?
     
  3. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Medieval Warm Period: ~0.3" C over 100 years.
    Current warm period: ~0.9" C over 100 years, and accelerating.

    Medieval Warm Period: Natural cause, possibly solar increase of ~0.6 W/m² over 200 years.
    Current warm period: human cause, CO2 increase of ~1.8 W/m² over 200 years.

    Medieval warm period: ended after about a century when the Sun went back to normal.
    Current warm period: will only end when 200 years of fossil CO2 is scrubbed from the air. Could be centuries.
     
  4. Surfer Joe

    Surfer Joe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    Messages:
    24,287
    Likes Received:
    15,347
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Poor billy. It's always about money with you people, isn't it?
    No wonder right-wingers have zero credibility when it comes to science, or pretty much anything else.
     
  5. DonGlock26

    DonGlock26 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2010
    Messages:
    47,159
    Likes Received:
    1,179
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Transcript: Al Gore Got ‘D’ in ‘Natural Sciences’ at Harvard



    (CNSNews.com) - In his commencement speech at Hamilton College on Sunday, former Vice President Al Gore told the graduates that global warming is “the most serious challenge our civilization has ever faced.” But as an undergraduate at Harvard University in the late 1960s, Gore--one of the most prominent spokesmen on climate change today--earned a “D” in Natural Sciences.

    Gore’s transcript documents that during his sophomore year at Harvard he earned a "D" in Natural Sciences 6 (Man’s Place in Nature). Also, as a senior at Harvard, he earned a C-plus in Natural Sciences 118.

    Gore, along with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for his work on global warming.

    For his college board achievement tests, Gore earned a 488 (out of 800) in physics, and a 519 (out of 800) in chemistry. Gore’s academic records were first obtained and reported on by reporters David Maraniss and Ellen Nakashima at The Washington Post in March 2000.

    Gore did relatively well, however, on the SAT, earning 1355 (out of 1600). For comparison, George W. Bush got 1206 on the SAT.

    President Barack Obama has not released his academic records. He first attended Occidental College and then transferred in 1981 to Columbia University, where he earned his B.A. He later went to Harvard Law School and earned his J.D. in 1991.

    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/transcript-al-gore-got-d-natural-sciences-harvard
     
  6. Mac-7

    Mac-7 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    Messages:
    86,664
    Likes Received:
    17,636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You call us science haters but I just gave you the informed opinion of one of the leading climate scientists in the world who tried to inform you that what you have been told by the hysterical global warming lobby was wrong.

    But your brain went on autopilot and refuses to comprehend.
     
  7. Panzerkampfwagen

    Panzerkampfwagen New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    Messages:
    11,570
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    0

    He's not denying climate change.
     
  8. Mac-7

    Mac-7 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    Messages:
    86,664
    Likes Received:
    17,636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No one denies climate change.

    Since the planet was created the climate has always changed.

    But the man-made global warming alarmists - which is what Lovelock used to be before he wised up - have been making end of the world predictions that were simply wrong.

    And in doing so they have scared libs like you into supporting bad policies that are hurting the human race.
     
  9. Panzerkampfwagen

    Panzerkampfwagen New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    Messages:
    11,570
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Did you even bother reading the article? He still accepts climate change, still accepts that humans are causing it, he just thinks it's going to take a bit longer to get there. He's not denying.......... oh (*)(*)(*)(*) it, you guys never read anything beyond the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing title.
     
  10. Mac-7

    Mac-7 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    Messages:
    86,664
    Likes Received:
    17,636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's going to take A LOT LONGER at the current rate and may never happen at all.

    Since if libs have so far been wrong about predicting the date the world will end - and they have - then they may never get it right.

    Lovelock admits that the climate scientists do not know what they are talking about and are just making wild guesses.

    That means they should go away and leave the rest of us alone until they do know what they are saying.
     
  11. Panzerkampfwagen

    Panzerkampfwagen New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    Messages:
    11,570
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Actually most predictions by the IPCC have been pretty accurate. The problem is that we don't know how much longer the oceans will continue sinking CO2 and start releasing it en mass. But you keep making up bull(*)(*)(*)(*), it's what you're good at.
     
  12. Mac-7

    Mac-7 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    Messages:
    86,664
    Likes Received:
    17,636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exactly.

    How does "infinitely" sound to you?

    Because the climate scientists can't predict what the climate will be next year yet alone in the next millennium.
     
  13. Panzerkampfwagen

    Panzerkampfwagen New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    Messages:
    11,570
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ignore listed. I am sick to death of arguing with people on here who lack the ability to think.
     
  14. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,871
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    At least I don't go around claiming that "there is no university courses in climate science" and I don't get bad journalism confused with good science. I happen to believe the people with the greatest track record of truth - which happens to be the climatologists and not the denialists (will happily compare any denialist website you want to choose with the IPCC for mistakes and cherry picking of data and in many cases outright lies - in fact I have even put money on the fact I can find more lies than you can)

    As for a "round figure" for WHAT? I am not dodging - just incapable of telepathy over this distance
     
  15. Colonel K

    Colonel K Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    9,770
    Likes Received:
    556
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In this context, "infinity" sounds unbelievably stupid. It indicates that the user does not understand the meaning of the language he uses , let alone the topic.
     
  16. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,871
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    You actually are proving nothing. It is not as if no-one knows that there is no capability in our system at present for medium term accurate forecasts, however short term (up to about four days) are increasingly accurate and long term climate forecasts ARE accurate within the confidence levels.
     
  17. Mac-7

    Mac-7 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    Messages:
    86,664
    Likes Received:
    17,636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Great.

    Just leave your white flag at the door on your way out for the next lib to use.
     
    CanadianEye and (deleted member) like this.
  18. Mac-7

    Mac-7 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    Messages:
    86,664
    Likes Received:
    17,636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't have to prove anything.

    I just relayed to you the admission of a top climate scientist that he and the other climate scientists do not know what they are talking about.

    He wishes they did because in his heart he believes that man-made global warming is real and poses a threat but in fact there is no way to prove that based on current evidence.

    That is me, a layman talking, it's a leading climate scientist.

    Further and most damaging to your cause in my opinion he says that very few other top climate scientists can agree with him because their jobs and their funding depend on promoting the man-made global warming myth.
     
  19. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,871
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    He is not a climate scientist - let alone a "top" climate scientist

    He does not have any qualification in any related field to climate science

    As for your unproven allegation - first heard it about 10 years ago - still waiting for proof
     
  20. Mac-7

    Mac-7 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    Messages:
    86,664
    Likes Received:
    17,636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He certainly is a climate scientist.

    And at his age and considering his many accomplishments he does not need your insignificant acknowledgement of that fact.
     
  21. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oh, does this mean you're going to stop talking about Al Gore now?

    Only right-wingers believe in the conspiracy theory. Give it a rest.
     
  22. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Lovelock is wrong about that, and if you believe it, you're wrong too. The rate of warming hasn't stopped or even slowed over the past 10 years: see Foster & Rahmstorf 2011. Lovelock is 92 years old, and it's clear he no longer stays up-to-date with the current literature. Both Foster & Rahmstorf 2011 and Santer et. al. 2011 seem to have escaped his notice. But you don't have that excuse.

    The only person making predictions like that, that I know of, was James Lovelock. So if you're right, then Lovelock is still wrong.

    Lovelock never said any such thing. Stop lying.
     
  23. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Only a right-winger could believe that being unable to think is a "victory".
     
  24. TheHat

    TheHat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2008
    Messages:
    20,931
    Likes Received:
    179
    Trophy Points:
    63
    So testy.

    He gave the articles in Time magazine back from the 70s. Did you read them? No? Why am I not surprised.
     
  25. Panzerkampfwagen

    Panzerkampfwagen New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    Messages:
    11,570
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Is The Times a scientific publication now?

    I also posted something, something which he displayed an incredible lack of reading comprehension in regards to.
     

Share This Page